Retro Funding 5 Guest Voter Selection Algorithm Explanation
AI summary of the linked articleOptimism's Citizens' House proposes using random sampling to select which Citizens vote in some Retro Funding rounds, scaling from three to four rounds per year. The authors say the change responds to Round 3 feedback that the process was too time-consuming for badgeholders and gave builders too little predictability. Under the plan, badgeholders would fully participate in two rounds, with the other two rounds split using random sampling, and the approach would be tested throughout Season 6. The article cites Hélène Landemore's hypothesis that sortition can avoid concentrated power without meaningfully affecting collective outputs, and argues that random sampling aims to approximate the entire Citizenry rather than a self-selected subset. |
 |
Recommended by 2 curators |
1 comment  Gotta say I was much more excited about RetroPGF when applications were super open-ended and everyone could take home lots of money. Now it feels like the fun has been robbed from it. I understand that a more metrics based approach makes distributions more fair etc., but it was sooo good discussing the definition of public goods and which projects behave well versus which don't. The categories now and the rigidity of the process make it now feel much more like work and not that much about an opportunity. Maybe projects like Optimism need to learn more from memecoins. Make poors rich, pay builders who are really at risk etc. Instead last round we had Zora taking everyone's OP and not distributing until today. It's also kinda shit that the real builders are punished for the scammers trying to trick the process. Maybe avoiding false positives is actually the wrong strategy. Maybe having false positives and mitigating the damage that they do is the right move because it means that you'll also have more positives overall, and especially harder to track positives that are small and full of potential. |
