Being a guest voter for Retro-funding was an eye-opener! From combing through docs to assessing projects and allocating OP tokens, here’s how I navigated the process, the challenges I faced, and insights for the future.

I began by reading through almost all documents related to RetroPGF from the initial seasons up to the most recent (Seasons 6 and 7). This preparation helped me develop:

• A more comprehensive understanding of Retro funding’s purpose and mechanics.

• Insights on funding allocation to optimize project impact.

• Familiarity with scoring criteria to fairly assess each project’s eligibility.

Before setting my budget allocation, I reviewed each project within each category. This review process was essential to gauge the quality, impact, and potential eligibility of each submission. For projects I already knew or used, this process was straightforward; for others, it required deeper research.

Observations: I noticed several projects from the same organization applying multiple times within a single category but reporting the same funding requirements. This practice was redundant and added unnecessary complexity for voters. I suggest consolidating similar projects into one application per category to streamline the process. Additionally, I observed some applications where the funding wasn’t directly relevant to the project, which raised concerns about their intent. Addressing this in future rounds could ensure all applications align with the funding’s objectives.

Based on my review, I allocated 2.5 million OP tokens with the following distribution: 50% toward Governance Infrastructure, as it encompasses many projects and tends to be technically complex. The remaining 50% was divided across other categories. This allocation approach was grounded in both the volume and nature of the projects within each category.

I manually scored projects and used pairwise as well to compare projects within the Governance Analytics category. This setup allowed for more granular insights, helping me rate projects based on their strengths. One of the biggest challenges was tracking a project’s real impact. While most projects had supporting links and write-ups, it was often difficult to assess their true reach or the number of users they impacted. Despite this, the allocation methods proved helpful. The top-weighted approach allowed me to make fair funding decisions for projects that demonstrated significant potential and alignment with Optimism’s goals.

The guest voter system is a promising experiment. However, to enhance objectivity, I recommend introducing guest or anonymous badge holders. Comparing decisions from current badge holders with those of new or randomly selected badge holders could provide a useful benchmark.

Potential Challenges: One limitation with guest voters is that some may lack deep familiarity with the collective’s operations. Nevertheless, the Optimism Collective provided ample resources, including guides and discussions in the guest voter Telegram group, which facilitated informed decision-making.

Given the diversity of perspectives guest voters bring, I suggest allowing exceptionally effective guest voters the opportunity to become long-term badge holders. This would both reward high-performing voters and bring fresh insights to the badge holder group.

Despite some complexities, the experience was enriching, offering a close look at Optimism’s commitment to decentralized governance and public goods funding. While badge holders ultimately determine the final allocation, I am optimistic about the process and look forward to contributing more in the future.

Stay Optimistic. 🔴

Being a guest voter for Retro-funding was an eye-opener! From combing through docs to assessing projects and allocating OP tokens, here’s how I navigated the process, the challenges I faced, and insights for the future.

I began by reading through almost all documents related to RetroPGF from the initial seasons up to the most recent (Seasons 6 and 7). This preparation helped me develop:

• A more comprehensive understanding of Retro funding’s purpose and mechanics.

• Insights on funding allocation to optimize project impact.

• Familiarity with scoring criteria to fairly assess each project’s eligibility.

Before setting my budget allocation, I reviewed each project within each category. This review process was essential to gauge the quality, impact, and potential eligibility of each submission. For projects I already knew or used, this process was straightforward; for others, it required deeper research.

Observations: I noticed several projects from the same organization applying multiple times within a single category but reporting the same funding requirements. This practice was redundant and added unnecessary complexity for voters. I suggest consolidating similar projects into one application per category to streamline the process. Additionally, I observed some applications where the funding wasn’t directly relevant to the project, which raised concerns about their intent. Addressing this in future rounds could ensure all applications align with the funding’s objectives.

Based on my review, I allocated 2.5 million OP tokens with the following distribution: 50% toward Governance Infrastructure, as it encompasses many projects and tends to be technically complex. The remaining 50% was divided across other categories. This allocation approach was grounded in both the volume and nature of the projects within each category.

I manually scored projects and used pairwise as well to compare projects within the Governance Analytics category. This setup allowed for more granular insights, helping me rate projects based on their strengths. One of the biggest challenges was tracking a project’s real impact. While most projects had supporting links and write-ups, it was often difficult to assess their true reach or the number of users they impacted. Despite this, the allocation methods proved helpful. The top-weighted approach allowed me to make fair funding decisions for projects that demonstrated significant potential and alignment with Optimism’s goals.

The guest voter system is a promising experiment. However, to enhance objectivity, I recommend introducing guest or anonymous badge holders. Comparing decisions from current badge holders with those of new or randomly selected badge holders could provide a useful benchmark.

Potential Challenges: One limitation with guest voters is that some may lack deep familiarity with the collective’s operations. Nevertheless, the Optimism Collective provided ample resources, including guides and discussions in the guest voter Telegram group, which facilitated informed decision-making.

Given the diversity of perspectives guest voters bring, I suggest allowing exceptionally effective guest voters the opportunity to become long-term badge holders. This would both reward high-performing voters and bring fresh insights to the badge holder group.

Despite some complexities, the experience was enriching, offering a close look at Optimism’s commitment to decentralized governance and public goods funding. While badge holders ultimately determine the final allocation, I am optimistic about the process and look forward to contributing more in the future.

Stay Optimistic. 🔴