In RetroPGF Round 3 anybody can submit an application. In the first two weeks there has been significant traction, with over 300 applications submitted.
To not overwhelm the voting process for badgeholders, there is a need for a review process which removes applications that violate the application rules (see RetroPGF 3 Application Guidelines).
Application Review Process Overview
Anybody can report a project using the report action on the relevant project profile in RetroPGF voting application(s). When reporting a project, the user fills out a form where they can select one or multiple rules the application violates.
Any badgeholder can volunteer to take part in the review process. These Badgeholder Reviewers will assess whether the application violates the application rules selected in the report.
Each reported application will be reviewed and voted on by 5 Reviewers. For the application to be excluded from the Round, at least 3 out of the 5 Reviewers need to cast votes in favor of excluding the application. Reviewers are asked to review, and vote on, a specific set of reports.
If applicants believe their application has been wrongfully excluded, and is not in violation of the Application Rules, they can file an appeal. Appeals are reviewed by a subset of volunteering Badgeholder Reviewers.
Badgeholder Reviewers are not allowed to vote on applications from their primary project.
“Primary” is defined as a project to which you dedicate > 25 % of working hours or derive > 25 % of your compensation.
In Round 3 , this review process is done by Badgeholder Reviewers; in future Rounds, this role will be fulfilled by an elected Code of Conduct Council. More details on this here.
How to participate
Any badgeholder can volunteer to participate in the application review process
To join as a Reviewer, a badgeholder must submit this form by Monday, October 16 th
The review process will take place from Oct 24 th - Nov 1 st. To effectively participate in this process, a reviewer should expect to spend at least 6 hours on reviews.
The Optimism Foundation will allocate 20 k OP to reward Reviewers for participating in the review process. Rewards will be retroactively allocated to participants by the Foundation.
Additionally, the Foundation will select a Lead Reviewer responsible for ensuring all reports have received reviews by 5 Reviewers, coordinating and cleaning up the incoming reports, communicating with other Reviewers, and coordinating with the RetroPGF team. The Lead Reviewer should expect to spend at least 12 hours on this process, and rewards will reflect the incremental commitment made by the Lead relative to Reviewers. The Lead Reviewer will be a non-voting Reviewer. On the form, you can select whether you are interested in becoming a lead reviewer.
Those who fill in the form will be contacted on Tuesday, October 17 th
We will have a Reviewer sync call on Monday, October 23 rd at 11 am PT / 6 pm UTC
RetroPGF 3 Application Rules
These rules were published as part of the RetroPGF 3 Application Guidelines.
Rules 10 ., 11 . and 12 . have been added after the applications process started to address an overwhelming number of low quality applications.
Promises of future impact - promises of future deliverables or impact are not allowed.
False statements & deception - false claims about your contributions, past impact or funding & grants are not allowed.
Hateful Content - No racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful speech, no discrimination.
Deceiving badgeholders - Malicious content that could cause harm or unintended consequences to users.
Fraud & Impersonation - Claiming to be a brand or person you are not. The Grant owner must be directly affiliated with the project, the funds must go to the project.
Advertising - Using RetroPGF application to showcase something you are selling like a token sale or NFT drop
Bribery - Bribing badgeholders or vote buying is strictly forbidden.
Contacting badgeholders to promote your application - Using private channels such as DMs to promote your applications to badgeholders
All recipients are subject to KYC - If you do not pass KYC, your grant will be returned to the RetroPGF treasury for future rounds
Outside of RetroPGF’s scope - contributions that do not have a clear relationship to Optimism, applications that do not highlight a valid contribution* or contributions which are outside of the RetroPGF scope**.
*Contribution is defined as an activity which required a minimum time commitment of 1 hour and which provided impact to the Collective.
**Please note that user interactions (e.g., sending transactions) on OP Mainnet, or on other OP chains that are part of the Superchain, are not in scope to be rewarded in RetroPGF 3 .
Spam - Applications containing spam, such as irrelevant answers, plagiarized content, broken or unrelated impact metrics and contribution links. Applications in languages other than English*.
*This will help simplify the process as English is the working language of the majority of Badgeholders. Please ensure you translate any content that’s part of the application.
Duplicate applications - Multiple applications from the same individual, project or group which apply for the same impact.
Members of contribution paths (Council Members, Ambassadors, NumbaNERDs, SupNERDs, TechNERDs, Translators) or Councils can’t submit individual applications for their work within the relevant workstream, as each workstream will apply as a project.
The post discusses the application review process for RetroPGF Round 3, explaining how projects can be reported and reviewed for rule violations. Any badgeholder can volunteer to review applications, and a comprehensive set of rules outline what constitutes a violation. The process involves five reviewers assessing each reported application, with the goal of ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines. Rewards are offered to participants, with a lead reviewer coordinating the review process. The role of Badgeholder Reviewers in the current round will later transition to an elected Code of Conduct Council. The application rules cover various aspects, including false claims, hateful content, deception, impersonation, spam, bribery, and more.
In RetroPGF Round 3 anybody can submit an application. In the first two weeks there has been sign…
In RetroPGF Round 3 anybody can submit an application. In the first two weeks there has been significant traction, with over 300 applications submitted 87 .
To not overwhelm the voting process for badgeholders, there is a need for a review process which removes applications that violate the application rules (see RetroPGF 3 Application Guidelines 56 ).
Application Review Process Overview
Anybody can report a project using the report action on the relevant project profile in RetroPGF voting application(s) 56 . When reporting a project, the user fills out a form where they can select one or multiple rules the application violates.
Any badgeholder can volunteer to take part in the review process. These Badgeholder Reviewers will assess whether the application violates the application rules selected in the report.
Each reported application will be reviewed and voted on by 5 Reviewers. For the application to be excluded from the Round, at least 3 out of the 5 Reviewers need to cast votes in favor of excluding the application. Reviewers are asked to review, and vote on, a specific set of reports.
If applicants believe their application has been wrongfully excluded, and is not in violation of the Application Rules, they can file an appeal 4 . Appeals are reviewed by a subset of volunteering Badgeholder Reviewers.
Badgeholder Reviewers are not allowed to vote on applications from their primary project.
“Primary” is defined as a project to which you dedicate > 25 % of working hours or derive > 25 % of your compensation.
In Round 3 , this review process is done by Badgeholder Reviewers; in future Rounds, this role will be fulfilled by an elected Code of Conduct Council. More details on this here 19 .
How to participate
Any badgeholder can volunteer to participate in the application review process
To join as a Reviewer, a badgeholder must submit this form 61 by Monday, October 16 th
The review process will take place from Oct 24 th - Nov 1 st. To effectively participate in this process, a reviewer should expect to spend at least 6 hours on reviews.
The Optimism Foundation will allocate 20 k OP to reward Reviewers for participating in the review process. Rewards will be retroactively allocated to participants by the Foundation.
Additionally, the Foundation will select a Lead Reviewer responsible for ensuring all reports have received reviews by 5 Reviewers, coordinating and cleaning up the incoming reports, communicating with other Reviewers, and coordinating with the RetroPGF team. The Lead Reviewer should expect to spend at least 12 hours on this process, and rewards will reflect the incremental commitment made by the Lead relative to Reviewers. The Lead Reviewer will be a non-voting Reviewer. On the form, you can select whether you are interested in becoming a lead reviewer.
Those who fill in the form will be contacted on Tuesday, October 17 th
We will have a Reviewer sync call on Monday, October 23 rd at 11 am PT / 6 pm UTC
RetroPGF 3 Application Rules
These rules were published as part of the RetroPGF 3 Application Guidelines 30 .
Rules 10 ., 11 . and 12 . have been added after the applications process started to address an overwhelming number of low quality applications.
Promises of future impact - promises of future deliverables or impact are not allowed.
False statements & deception - false claims about your contributions, past impact or funding & grants are not allowed.
Hateful Content - No racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful speech, no discrimination.
Deceiving badgeholders - Malicious content that could cause harm or unintended consequences to users.
Fraud & Impersonation - Claiming to be a brand or person you are not. The Grant owner must be directly affiliated with the project, the funds must go to the project.
Advertising - Using RetroPGF application to showcase something you are selling like a token sale or NFT drop
Bribery - Bribing badgeholders or vote buying is strictly forbidden.
Contacting badgeholders to promote your application - Using private channels such as DMs to promote your applications to badgeholders
All recipients are subject to KYC - If you do not pass KYC, your grant will be returned to the RetroPGF treasury for future rounds
Outside of RetroPGF’s scope - contributions that do not have a clear relationship to Optimism, applications that do not highlight a valid contribution* or contributions which are outside of the RetroPGF scope**.
*Contribution is defined as an activity which required a minimum time commitment of 1 hour and which provided impact to the Collective.
**Please note that user interactions (e.g., sending transactions) on OP Mainnet, or on other OP chains that are part of the Superchain, are not in scope to be rewarded in RetroPGF 3 .
Spam - Applications containing spam, such as irrelevant answers, plagiarized content, broken or unrelated impact metrics and contribution links. Applications in languages other than English*.
*This will help simplify the process as English is the working language of the majority of Badgeholders. Please ensure you translate any content that’s part of the application.
Duplicate applications - Multiple applications from the same individual, project or group which apply for the same impact.
Members of contribution paths 11 (Council Members, Ambassadors, NumbaNERDs, SupNERDs, TechNERDs, Translators) or Councils can’t submit individual applications for their work within the relevant workstream, as each workstream will apply as a project.
Hiho!
I have a question that doesn’t receive an answer, sorry to do it again. If we are going to up…
Hiho!
I have a question that doesn’t receive an answer, sorry to do it again. If we are going to updated a proposal for RPGF 3 , but we are part of a intention or a mission, that impact it’s already been funded. We are trying to updated this information with a label “Part of Intention 3 or Mission 4 ” just to clarify that this information it’s part of another intiative or it’s better just to not publish that informaiton.
Also there are some events that were delivered with another associations and collaborations, i think that this is going to be uploaded for different applications, how we can assure that this it’s not being ignored or break the rules.
Thanks =)
Not sure I completely understand this question. Let’s take this convo to the #retropgf-discussions …
Not sure I completely understand this question. Let’s take this convo to the #retropgf-discussions channel in Discord :slight_smile:
In RetroPGF Round 3 anybody can submit an application. In the first two weeks there has been sign…
In RetroPGF Round 3 anybody can submit an application. In the first two weeks there has been significant traction, with over 300 applications submitted 80 . To not overwhelm the voting process for badgeholders, there is a need for a review process which removes applications that violate the application rules (see RetroPGF 3 Application Guidelines 53 ). Application Review Process Overview Anybody can report a project using the report action on the relevant project profile in RetroPGF voting application(s) 53 . When reporting a project, the user fills out a form where they can select one or multiple rules the application violates. Any badgeholder can volunteer to take part in the review process. These Badgeholder Reviewers will assess whether the application violates the application rules selected in the report. Each reported application will be reviewed and voted on by 5 Reviewers. For the application to be excluded from the Round, at least 3 out of the 5 Reviewers need to cast votes in favor of excluding the application. Reviewers are asked to review, and vote on, a specific set of reports. If applicants believe their application has been wrongfully excluded, and is not in violation of the Application Rules, they can file an appeal 4 . Appeals are reviewed by a subset of volunteering Badgeholder Reviewers. Badgeholder Reviewers are not allowed to vote on applications from their primary project. “Primary” is defined as a project to which you dedicate > 25 % of working hours or derive > 25 % of your compensation. In Round 3 , this review process is done by Badgeholder Reviewers; in future Rounds, this role will be fulfilled by an elected Code of Conduct Council. More details on this here 18 . How to participate Any badgeholder can volunteer to participate in the application review process To join as a Reviewer, a badgeholder must submit this form 56 by Monday, October 16 th The review process will take place from Oct 24 th - Nov 1 st. To effectively participate in this process, a reviewer should expect to spend at least 6 hours on reviews. The Optimism Foundation will allocate 20 k OP to reward Reviewers for participating in the review process. Rewards will be retroactively allocated to participants by the Foundation. Additionally, the Foundation will select a Lead Reviewer responsible for ensuring all reports have received reviews by 5 Reviewers, coordinating and cleaning up the incoming reports, communicating with other Reviewers, and coordinating with the RetroPGF team. The Lead Reviewer should expect to spend at least 12 hours on this process, and rewards will reflect the incremental commitment made by the Lead relative to Reviewers. The Lead Reviewer will be a non-voting Reviewer. On the form, you can select whether you are interested in becoming a lead reviewer. Those who fill in the form will be contacted on Tuesday, October 17 th We will have a Reviewer sync call on Monday, October 23 rd at 11 am PT / 6 pm UTC RetroPGF 3 Application Rules These rules were published as part of the RetroPGF 3 Application Guidelines 29 . Rules 10 ., 11 . and 12 . have been added after the applications process started to address an overwhelming number of low quality applications. Promises of future impact - promises of future deliverables or impact are not allowed. False statements & deception - false claims about your contributions, past impact or funding & grants are not allowed. Hateful Content - No racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful speech, no discrimination. Deceiving badgeholders - Malicious content that could cause harm or unintended consequences to users. Fraud & Impersonation - Claiming to be a brand or person you are not. The Grant owner must be directly affiliated with the project, the funds must go to the project. Advertising - Using RetroPGF application to showcase something you are selling like a token sale or NFT drop Bribery - Bribing badgeholders or vote buying is strictly forbidden. Contacting badgeholders to promote your application - Using private channels such as DMs to promote your applications to badgeholders All recipients are subject to KYC - If you do not pass KYC, your grant will be returned to the RetroPGF treasury for future rounds Outside of RetroPGF’s scope - contributions that do not have a clear relationship to Optimism, applications that do not highlight a valid contribution* or contributions which are outside of the RetroPGF scope**. *Contribution is defined as an activity which required a minimum time commitment of 1 hour and which provided impact to the Collective. **Please note that user interactions (e.g., sending transactions) on OP Mainnet, or on other OP chains that are part of the Superchain, are not in scope to be rewarded in RetroPGF 3 . Spam - Applications containing spam, such as irrelevant answers, plagiarized content, broken or unrelated impact metrics and contribution links. Applications in languages other than English*. *This will help simplify the process as English is the working language of the majority of Badgeholders. Please ensure you translate any content that’s part of the application. Duplicate applications - Multiple applications from the same individual, project or group which apply for the same impact. Members of contribution paths 11 (Council Members, Ambassadors, NumbaNERDs, SupNERDs, TechNERDs, Translators) or Councils can’t submit individual applications for their work within the relevant workstream, as each workstream will apply as a project.
Would it be acceptable to fill out the form with a Discord handle instead of a Telegram handle?
@Jo…
Would it be acceptable to fill out the form with a Discord handle instead of a Telegram handle?
@Jonas - are you the person to ask? (I’m still trying to figure out how things work around here :slightly_smiling_face:)
Hiho! I have a question that doesn’t receive an answer, sorry to do it again. If we are going to up…
Hiho! I have a question that doesn’t receive an answer, sorry to do it again. If we are going to updated a proposal for RPGF 3 , but we are part of a intention or a mission, that impact it’s already been funded. We are trying to updated this information with a label “Part of Intention 3 or Mission 4 ” just to clarify that this information it’s part of another intiative or it’s better just to not publish that informaiton. Also there are some events that were delivered with another associations and collaborations, i think that this is going to be uploaded for different applications, how we can assure that this it’s not being ignored or break the rules. Thanks =)
Not sure I completely understand this question. Let’s take this convo to the #retropgf-discussions …
Not sure I completely understand this question. Let’s take this convo to the #retropgf-discussions channel in Discord :slight_smile:
Would it be acceptable to fill out the form with a Discord handle instead of a Telegram handle? @Jo…
Would it be acceptable to fill out the form with a Discord handle instead of a Telegram handle? @Jonas - are you the person to ask? (I’m still trying to figure out how things work around here :slightly_smiling_face:)
To address badgeholder feedback some adjustments have been made to the process, which are now refle…
To address badgeholder feedback some adjustments have been made to the process, which are now reflected in the post:
Each reported application will be reviewed by 5 Reviewers. For the application to be excluded from the Round, at least 3 out of the 5 Reviewers need to cast votes in favor of excluding the application. Reviewers can self select which applications to review and vote on, as long as the application has not already received votes from 5 Reviewers.
Badgeholder Reviewers are not allowed to cast votes on applications from their primary project. “Primary” is defined as a project to which you dedicate > 25 % of working hours or derive > 25 % of your compensation.
The Lead Reviewer will be a non-voting Reviewer.
A large portion of badgeholders are associated with a project that is participating in RetroPGF 3 .
Requiring at least 3 out of 5 Reviewers to cast votes to exclude an application, should provide resilience while still allowing for broad participation in the process.
To address badgeholder feedback some adjustments have been made to the process, which are now refle…
To address badgeholder feedback some adjustments have been made to the process, which are now reflected in the post: Each reported application will be reviewed by 5 Reviewers. For the application to be excluded from the Round, at least 3 out of the 5 Reviewers need to cast votes in favor of excluding the application. Reviewers can self select which applications to review and vote on, as long as the application has not already received votes from 5 Reviewers. Badgeholder Reviewers are not allowed to cast votes on applications from their primary project. “Primary” is defined as a project to which you dedicate > 25 % of working hours or derive > 25 % of your compensation. The Lead Reviewer will be a non-voting Reviewer. A large portion of badgeholders are associated with a project that is participating in RetroPGF 3 . Requiring at least 3 out of 5 Reviewers to cast votes to exclude an application, should provide resilience while still allowing for broad participation in the process.
I have flagged a few provisional applications that went into this document Spreadsheet, they list a…
I have flagged a few provisional applications that went into this document Spreadsheet, they list applications that are completely unrelated to impact & plagiarism
I have flagged a few provisional applications that went into this document Spreadsheet 37 , they l…
I have flagged a few provisional applications that went into this document Spreadsheet 37 , they list applications that are completely unrelated to impact & plagiarism
I have flagged a few provisional applications that went into this document Spreadsheet 36 , they l…
I have flagged a few provisional applications that went into this document Spreadsheet 36 , they list applications that are completely unrelated to impact & plagiarism
Hi! Im trying to find where to send the application for my project proposal for RetroPGF 3 , but im…
Hi! Im trying to find where to send the application for my project proposal for RetroPGF 3 , but im not being able to find it… Im new to this forum, if someone could point me in the right direction, that would be awesome :heart:
Hi! Im trying to find where to send the application for my project proposal for RetroPGF 3 , but im…
Hi! Im trying to find where to send the application for my project proposal for RetroPGF 3 , but im not being able to find it… Im new to this forum, if someone could point me in the right direction, that would be awesome :heart:
I think this Application Review Process is a great idea and I’m happy that it’s being implemented f…
I think this Application Review Process is a great idea and I’m happy that it’s being implemented for this round.
I am not a badgeholder, but I was reviewing some applications and a high percentage of them (IMHO) do not meet even the minimum criteria to participate.
Thanks to the Review Process, the badgeholders will be able to focus on rewarding the projects/individuals that truly made a positive impact on the Collective.
FractalVisions: Were you viewing the applications on Nouns Agora ? We noticed that the applications are appearing without edits made to them …
So it may be possible that they have been completed and the UI is not updated yet. We updated our profile banner and a few other things that didn’t reflect on the UI properly.
Cc: @zcf for eyes on these tech issues.
LauNaMu: Thank you so much for contributing to the review process! We are thrilled to have a LOT of eyes screening the applications. The report button will be available starting October 24th!
So please go ahead and report those projects you’ve identified are in violation of the application rules.
I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and reporting violations to share your participation on this process on Discord. Looking forward to giving you all a Praise for this contribution!
I think this Application Review Process is a great idea and I’m happy that it’s being implemented f…
I think this Application Review Process is a great idea and I’m happy that it’s being implemented for this round. I am not a badgeholder, but I was reviewing some applications and a high percentage of them (IMHO) do not meet even the minimum criteria to participate. Thanks to the Review Process, the badgeholders will be able to focus on rewarding the projects/individuals that truly made a positive impact on the Collective.
FractalVisions: Were you viewing the applications on Nouns Agora ? We noticed that the applications are appearing without edits made to them …
So it may be possible that they have been completed and the UI is not updated yet. We updated our profile banner and a few other things that didn’t reflect on the UI properly.
Cc: @zcf for eyes on these tech issues.
LauNaMu: Thank you so much for contributing to the review process! We are thrilled to have a LOT of eyes screening the applications. The report button will be available starting October 24th!
So please go ahead and report those projects you’ve identified are in violation of the application rules.
I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and reporting violations to share your participation on this process on Discord. Looking forward to giving you all a Praise for this contribution!
Were you viewing the applications on Nouns Agora ? We noticed that the applications are appearing w…
Were you viewing the applications on Nouns Agora ? We noticed that the applications are appearing without edits made to them …
So it may be possible that they have been completed and the UI is not updated yet. We updated our profile banner and a few other things that didn’t reflect on the UI properly.
Cc: @zcf for eyes :eyes: on these tech issues.
Were you viewing the applications on Nouns Agora ? We noticed that the applications are appearing w…
Were you viewing the applications on Nouns Agora ? We noticed that the applications are appearing without edits made to them … So it may be possible that they have been completed and the UI is not updated yet. We updated our profile banner and a few other things that didn’t reflect on the UI properly. Cc: @zcf for eyes :eyes: on these tech issues.
Hey there, so we’re waiting on confirmation on the review link. Once we have that, a report button …
Hey there, so we’re waiting on confirmation on the review link. Once we have that, a report button will be implemented. Stay tuned!
Hey there, so we’re waiting on confirmation on the review link. Once we have that, a report button …
Hey there, so we’re waiting on confirmation on the review link. Once we have that, a report button will be implemented. Stay tuned!
Thank you so much for contributing to the review process! We are thrilled to have a LOT of eyes scr…
Thank you so much for contributing to the review process! We are thrilled to have a LOT of eyes screening the applications. The report button will be available starting October 24 th!
So please go ahead and report those projects you’ve identified are in violation of the application rules.
I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and reporting violations to share your participation on this process on Discord. Looking forward to giving you all a Praise for this contribution! :raised_hands:t 5 :
Thank you so much for contributing to the review process! We are thrilled to have a LOT of eyes scr…
Thank you so much for contributing to the review process! We are thrilled to have a LOT of eyes screening the applications. The report button will be available starting October 24 th! So please go ahead and report those projects you’ve identified are in violation of the application rules. I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and reporting violations to share your participation on this process on Discord. Looking forward to giving you all a Praise for this contribution! :raised_hands:t 5 :
LauNaMu:
I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and re…
LauNaMu:
I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and reporting violations to share your participation on this process on Discord. Looking forward to giving you all a Praise for this contribution! :raised_hands:t 5 :
Really? Anyone in the world could flag a prop?
This is incredible decentralized, and also praising for it =,)
Yes! :slight_smile:
Anyone in the world regardless of their role in the process, or even if they ar…
Yes! :slight_smile:
Anyone in the world regardless of their role in the process, or even if they are in the forum or not, can participate in flagging an application for being in violation of the application criteria.
LauNaMu: I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and re…
LauNaMu: I would also highly encourage anyone that is working on reviewing applications and reporting violations to share your participation on this process on Discord. Looking forward to giving you all a Praise for this contribution! :raised_hands:t 5 : Really? Anyone in the world could flag a prop? This is incredible decentralized, and also praising for it =,)
Yes! :slight_smile: Anyone in the world regardless of their role in the process, or even if they ar…
Yes! :slight_smile: Anyone in the world regardless of their role in the process, or even if they are in the forum or not, can participate in flagging an application for being in violation of the application criteria.
