Amplifying Impact Retro Grants program funded by Thank Arb as part of their pluralistic grants program.

This program focuses on testing allocation mechanisms and methodologies using two of Ethelo’s unique decision making templates provided by Ethelo and the eDemocracy Network (which I was/am the executive director of) that facilitate complex multi-attribute decision making and prioritize minimizing polarization, a predefined rubric, and the Ethelo algorithm. The weighted evaluation avoids popularity contests and cronyism and prioritizes projects exceeding expectations in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Blind expert reviews provide unbiased data, and Ethelo’s algorithm ensures transparent, consensus-driven allocation.

For this project we utilized the budgeting tool, which allows expert reviewers to make specific funding allocation suggestions as well as the multi criteria decision making tool which utilizes questions that can be weighted for relevance and significance.

Some of the features of this project:

• Analyzing the effectiveness of funds allocated in quadratic funding rounds and helping to optimize fund allocation through "right sizing" via retroactive funding.

• Facilitating the reduction of polarization in expert reviews via a customized algorithm.

• Hastening the process of implementing fundamentally important ENS infrastructure for Arbitrum (as assessed by experienced developers and other high context expert reviewers) and the entire EVM space.

• Helping to develop an important new vertical of refi projects with the support of highly credible environmental experts including IPCC scientists, journalists, Greenpeace Founder, Director/Producer of the Corporation, Former UNEP director and various other high level climate professionals.

• Build out and testing of valuable infrastructure for on-chain decision making.

STATS

2 retro rounds based on GG20 projects.

• ENS

• Climate

84 grantees

• 82 grantees went through

• 1 recused for COI

• 1 pulled out due to not being able to KYC

Bonus Funding for projects built, building or preparing to build on Arbitrum

6 projects were built on Arbitrum and improving features for greater impact or have refactored from other chains

• WebHash

• Loop

• Blocksmith

• Eth.limo

• Fluid Key

• GeoCities

11 projects are currently building/deploying contracts on Arbitrum with the help of grant money received

• Byte OnChain

• Seabrick

• Solar Foundation

• Ekonavi

• deFood

• Rooted Labs •

• Kokonut

• PinSave

• DM3

12 Projects were offered a small bonus grant to help them develop a plan to build on Arbitrum in the near term

• Switch

• Menthol Protocol

• Change Code

• Recommon

• Greenpill Kenya

• ReFi Tulum

• Green Planet Conservation

• AgroDAO

• Earthist

• ReFi Atlantico

• Eppie

• Bankless

• Huddle 01

• Operator Agent

An additional 11 projects indicated that once they are able to secure more funding they intend to build however their plans were not concrete enough to fund at this time.

1 project was unable to participate in bonus funding as they are based in China and are unable to build on Arbitrum.

ENS Round

• Original GG20 round consisted of 38 projects

• 40% of those projects opted in to the retro round

Climate Round

• Original GG20 round consisted of 129 projects

• 65% of those projects opted in to the retro round

Attestations badges were minted for every project

Analyzing Quadratic vs. Expert Rankings for GG20 Retro Impact Funding

Expert Ranking vs. Quadratic Funding

Quadratic Funding

Advantages

• Promotes grassroots/community participation and democratic decision-making (Harnesses the Wisdom of the Crowd).

• Can help identify projects with broad-based support.

Disadvantages:

• May favor projects with strong initial support or networks.

• Can be susceptible to gaming or strategic voting.

• Can act as popularity contest rather than a best project contest.

Expert Ranking/Algorithmic rankings

Advantages:

• Can leverage specialized knowledge and experience.

• Increases fairness through transparency

• Rational

• Most commonly shared, least divisive outcomes

• Tailor systems (ie multi criteria voting, budgeting)

Disadvantages:

• Can be susceptible to biases or conflicts of interest.

• May not reflect the preferences of the broader community.

The choice between expert ranking and quadratic funding obviously depends on the specific context, goals, and available resources. While expert ranking offers efficiency and specialized knowledge, quadratic funding can promote community involvement and democratic decision-making. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, the community can select the most appropriate method for their particular needs. Or can find a way to combine the two methods.

How Rankings Compared in this Process

We're comparing two ranked lists of projects, one that used quadratic funding and one that used experts and a ’fairness‘ algorithm. The key difference lies in the expertise and perspective of the “Rankers”. The crowd, to some degree, represents more generalized, less specific knowledge, while the experts possess in-depth knowledge of the space.

Key Similarities and Differences

Top-Ranked Projects:

The crowd and experts made significantly different choices for top-ranked projects, suggesting distinct priorities.

Mid-Ranked Projects:

There is significant overlap and a general consensus among both groups on the importance of these projects.

Bottom-Ranked Projects:

Divergence: The bottom of the lists shows considerable differences, reflecting diverse opinions and priorities. This suggests that factors beyond core principles, such as specific geographic focus or project type, influence rankings.

Looking at this early analysis of the two systems, ideas emerge for how to get a clearer picture of the ranking. Stay tuned for a final report.