retroPGF3 is my first time, and I myself have just learned many things. So I wanna share my OP knowledge as much as possible so that no one miss out.

Nano always emphasizes that Optimism retroPGF is not perfect. It is a new direction that has just emerged, and people are working on improving the system continuously.

It's good that we have a community to help each other, criticize, and provide feedback.

Here are some drawbacks that have been noted:

1. The round design lacks distribution of people reviewing. Read more

2. The distribution of Optimism badgeholders, called "dig," should be more detailed, and the workload should not be overloaded. Read more

Combining two problems, we can see that badgeholders are overloaded. They don’t have enough time to “dig” each projects truly.

https://twitter.com/0x_nanobro/status/1745735983885357163

Also there are some misunderstanding spreading around. So I would like to clarifies them as FAQ.

In the crypto world, we see many grants that require a clear project outline before applying for funding. RetroPGF works similarly but creates the project first and applies for funding later.

This way people can start building without the long wait.

Drawback is sometimes we fail to reward people properly.

In late September 2023, some misunderstood and urged followers to start working at that time. However, retroPGF3 actually had already announced the program since mid-June 2023.

Rushing to submit work during a tight schedule may lead to insufficient impact.

There is an Impact Evaluation Framework for badgeholders, and everyone's scoring and evaluation depend on individual perspectives. Read more

Finishing this docs, similar to preparing for an exam, will give you an edge when you plan your works.

Regarding the abundance of badgeholders for Zuzalu, the retroPGF3 system's flaws, making it challenging for badgeholders to thoroughly review each project.

• Zuzalu has both bad links and good links.

• The event was real.

• Zuzalu already made quite an impact in badgeholders point of view.

Errors can occur on both sides:

1. Errors from the retroPGF side, similar to Zuzalu (but different entities). retroPGF may not be perfect, and evaluators may make mistakes.

2. Errors from the applicants: Providing incorrect or insufficient work details, making it difficult to assess the work, such as submitting only one Twitter link.

Avoid claiming rewards for similar projects. If someone works on multiple projects, they should make them significantly different. The content of the work should not overlap, reducing confusion.

Some individuals work on multiple projects; they need to put more effort into distinguishing each project to minimize confusion for badge holders, who may have limited time to review.

For the retroPGF system, our development involves participation in gov/feedback/etc 👈 This is something we do in a limited capacity. What we can do best is on the applicant's side to avoid missing opportunities.

~146 badgeholders

People often ask if this kind of approach has an impact. If we have to translate it, it implies a risk.

If the project owners are not sure about their work, how will the badgeholders sure about this?

👉We're putting in efforts to align with our goals, focusing on work that we can confidently say, "How tf can something like this not have an impact?"

Dev might be the best choice

That’s it! Stay Optimistic guys.🔴See you at retroPGF4.

retroPGF3 is my first time, and I myself have just learned many things. So I wanna share my OP knowledge as much as possible so that no one miss out.

Nano always emphasizes that Optimism retroPGF is not perfect. It is a new direction that has just emerged, and people are working on improving the system continuously.

It's good that we have a community to help each other, criticize, and provide feedback.

Here are some drawbacks that have been noted:

1. The round design lacks distribution of people reviewing. Read more

2. The distribution of Optimism badgeholders, called "dig," should be more detailed, and the workload should not be overloaded. Read more

Combining two problems, we can see that badgeholders are overloaded. They don’t have enough time to “dig” each projects truly.

https://twitter.com/0x_nanobro/status/1745735983885357163

Also there are some misunderstanding spreading around. So I would like to clarifies them as FAQ.

In the crypto world, we see many grants that require a clear project outline before applying for funding. RetroPGF works similarly but creates the project first and applies for funding later.

This way people can start building without the long wait.

Drawback is sometimes we fail to reward people properly.

In late September 2023, some misunderstood and urged followers to start working at that time. However, retroPGF3 actually had already announced the program since mid-June 2023.

Rushing to submit work during a tight schedule may lead to insufficient impact.

There is an Impact Evaluation Framework for badgeholders, and everyone's scoring and evaluation depend on individual perspectives. Read more

Finishing this docs, similar to preparing for an exam, will give you an edge when you plan your works.

Regarding the abundance of badgeholders for Zuzalu, the retroPGF3 system's flaws, making it challenging for badgeholders to thoroughly review each project.

• Zuzalu has both bad links and good links.

• The event was real.

• Zuzalu already made quite an impact in badgeholders point of view.

Errors can occur on both sides:

1. Errors from the retroPGF side, similar to Zuzalu (but different entities). retroPGF may not be perfect, and evaluators may make mistakes.

2. Errors from the applicants: Providing incorrect or insufficient work details, making it difficult to assess the work, such as submitting only one Twitter link.

Avoid claiming rewards for similar projects. If someone works on multiple projects, they should make them significantly different. The content of the work should not overlap, reducing confusion.

Some individuals work on multiple projects; they need to put more effort into distinguishing each project to minimize confusion for badge holders, who may have limited time to review.

For the retroPGF system, our development involves participation in gov/feedback/etc 👈 This is something we do in a limited capacity. What we can do best is on the applicant's side to avoid missing opportunities.

~146 badgeholders

People often ask if this kind of approach has an impact. If we have to translate it, it implies a risk.

If the project owners are not sure about their work, how will the badgeholders sure about this?

👉We're putting in efforts to align with our goals, focusing on work that we can confidently say, "How tf can something like this not have an impact?"

Dev might be the best choice

That’s it! Stay Optimistic guys.🔴See you at retroPGF4.