I propose piloting a Citizens’ Assembly process to support badgeholders in the assessment and voting process of the 4th round of Retro public good funding. This assembly would allow us to overcome the most blatant shortcomings of the RPGF3 process. It would refocus the process from collected intelligence to collective intelligence.

For readers not familiar with the Retro public good funding (RPGF) process, here is a short introduction. For others, go directly to the next paragraph.

The Optimism Collective associated with the Optimism blockchain, is a community dedicated to supporting public goods through innovative funding strategies. The idea of retroactive Public Goods Funding is to reward projects or individuals after they have created something that benefits the public, especially within the blockchain or Ethereum ecosystem. The idea is to provide incentives for work that has already proven to be valuable, as opposed to traditional funding mechanisms that invest in potential future outcomes. The RPGF focuses on Public Goods meaning projects that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. In the context of the blockchain and Ethereum, this can include open-source software, educational resources, community-building initiatives, and other projects that contribute to the ecosystem's health and growth.

The decision on which projects or individuals to fund is made through a decentralized process, involving so-called badegholders who are a selected group of community members acknowledged for their reputation in the community.

The third round of Optimism's Retro Public Goods Funding (RPGF) is now closed and is facing several criticisms and challenges:

One key point of contention is the eligibility of projects with substantial financial backing, including those funded by venture capital. Critics argue that such projects, already financially supported, should not be eligible for RPGF funds, which are intended for contributors without such backing.

Feedback from the Optimism Collective community also highlights issues with the RPGF process. For instance, there was confusion over the distinction between individual and team grants, with concerns about potential "double-dipping" when both received funding. The use of lists in the voting process was another contentious topic. While lists made voting easier for badgeholders, they may have encouraged lazy voting and conformity, with people copying lists without a thorough review of the projects.

Furthermore, there is a call for more accountability among badgeholders, with suggestions that those who vote irresponsibly or without proper rationale should face consequences. The feedback also emphasized the need for a more transparent and rigorous project application process to prevent spam and ensure high-quality submissions.

Implementing a citizen's assembly of badgeholders could be an effective solution to overcome the limitations observed in the third round of the Optimism Retro Public Goods Funding (RPGF).

1. Diversified Decision-Making: A citizen's assembly would bring together a diverse group of badgeholders with different perspectives and expertise. This diversity can help mitigate the risks of conformity and groupthink that arise from reliance on lists and popular opinions. It encourages more holistic and varied viewpoints in the decision-making process, leading to a more representative and balanced selection of projects.

2. Enhanced Accountability and Transparency: Such an assembly would operate under a framework that ensures accountability and transparency in its decision-making processes. Badgeholders would be able to collectively articulate their rationales for voting, fostering a culture of responsibility and thoughtful consideration. This setup also allows for the community to better understand and trust the decision-making process.

3. Structured Deliberation: A citizen's assembly model typically involves structured deliberation, where participants are provided with detailed information about each project and have the opportunity to discuss and debate their merits and drawbacks. This structured approach ensures that each project is given fair consideration and that decisions are based on a thorough evaluation rather than superficial factors like brand recognition or popularity.

4. Reduced Workload Per Individual: By distributing the workload among a larger group, the individual burden of assessing and voting on a high volume of projects is lessened. This can lead to more effective and less rushed evaluations, as each member of the assembly can dedicate appropriate time and attention to a smaller number of projects.

5. Potential for Innovative Solutions: A citizen's assembly of badgeholders, with its diverse composition and structured approach to decision-making, could also be a breeding ground for innovative solutions to emerging challenges within the RPGF process.

This approach aligns with the principles of decentralized governance and community involvement that are central to the ethos of the Optimism collective. It offers a way to refine and improve the RPGF process, making it more equitable, transparent, and effective in supporting public goods within the Optimism ecosystem.

The assembly would demand 3 days of work. It could be centralized and take place in one single place or be distributed in a couple of hubs depending on the place of living of the badgeholders.