Review of Optimism retro funding round 1

In this review by Vitalik, the results of the Retroactive Public Goods Funding proposed by Optimism are examined. A total of $1 million was allocated to 58 projects in the RetroPGF Experiment #1: $1 Million Dollars for Public Goods. The experiment included the participation of Badge Holders, who acted as governance experts. There were 22 badge holders who were certified as experts. The Expert manual for RetroPGF provided guidance for the badge holders.

The distribution of grants was as follows: https://gyazo.com/f7253fcf83f73a825b54a03fe493b25a. A comparison was made between Gitcoin and RetroPGF, highlighting the differences between the two platforms https://gyazo.com/e8a4b3bca87b92291d26b65d001ebc8d https://gyazo.com/f7253fcf83f73a825b54a03fe493b25a. It was observed that the winners of the Optimism retro funding round were predominantly technology projects, even though non-tech projects were eligible. This bias towards tech-oriented projects was likely influenced by the choice of badge holders and subconscious biases.

The use of RetroPGF for fund distribution resulted in smaller wealth disparities compared to Gitcoin. Many well-known projects received funding, aligning with the initial intention. Infrastructure projects were particularly popular. According to Vitalik, the quality of the funded projects was high, and the evaluation process was easier than expected. The limited number of badge holders provided more appropriate judgments compared to a larger crowd.

An interesting inclusion in the funded projects was the presence of the China's Ethereum community, represented by ethereum.cn. This highlights the need for considering the evaluation of projects from different cultural backgrounds and languages. Vitalik suggests the selection of experts from various fields and countries to ensure a diverse and fair evaluation process.

Several solutions are proposed to address the challenges faced in the RetroPGF experiment. These include fine-tuning of Secondary voting, dividing the voting process into subcommittees, and exploring the possibility of delegation. The question of how much funding should be allocated when retroactively supporting public goods, and the potential biases in the selection process, are also raised.

The Retroactive Public Goods Funding giving Exit to public goods (OSS) concept is discussed, highlighting the challenge of funding projects that may not receive financial support until they have already succeeded https://gyazo.com/a5d97104f687a29fa43d40882294f44d. The issue of vulnerability in the Retroactive Public Goods Funding Nominations process is addressed, suggesting solutions such as imposing a deposit for proposals and implementing Proof of Personhood (PoP) identification.

In the 雑談スレ, participants discuss their thoughts on the RetroPGF experiment. They draw parallels between RetroPGF and the Nobel Prize, particularly in terms of evaluating and rewarding projects that have provided value in the past. The concept of Secondary voting is mentioned as a means to evaluate and distribute rewards for projects that have contributed to the public good. The challenges of evaluating basic research and the need for a fair evaluation process are also discussed.

The conversation touches on the importance of structure and transparency in the evaluation process, as well as the potential for biases and hacks. The concept of Being Conscious of Structure and the visualization of interests are suggested as possible approaches. The limitations of relying solely on human evaluation and the potential for algorithmic evaluation are debated. The need for a balance between software-based evaluation and democratic deliberation is emphasized.

Overall, the review provides insights into the Optimism retro funding round 1 and raises important questions and considerations for the future of retroactive public goods funding.