Optimism’s Retro Funding Round 5 (RF5) just wrapped up, with 79 projects (out of ~130 applicants) awarded a total of 8M OP for their contributions to Ethereum and the OP Stack. You can find all the official details about the round here.

In some ways, this round felt like a return to earlier Retro Funding days. There were fewer projects than Rounds 3 and 4. Venerable teams like Protocol Guild, go-ethereum, and Solidity were back in the mix. Voters voted on projects instead of metrics.

However, RF5 also introduced several major twists: voting within categories, guest voters, and an expertise dimension. We’ll explain all these things in a minute.

Like our other posts in the “opening up the ballot box” canon, this post will analyze the shape of the rewards distribution curve and the preferences of individual voters using anonymized data. We’ll also deep dive into the results by category and compare expert vs non-expert voting patterns.

Finally, we'll tackle the key question this round sought to answer: do experts vote differently than non-experts? In our view, the answer is yes. We have a lot of data on this topic, so you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

Open Collective is a platform that enables groups to collect and disburse funds transparently. It is used by many open-source projects, communities, and other groups to fund their activities. Notable projects include Open Web Docs (maintainers of MDN Web Docs), Babel, and Webpack.

At Open Source Observer, we have been working on collecting and processing Open Collective data to make it available for analysis. This includes all transactions made on the platform, such as donations, expenses, and transfers. Datasets are updated weekly.

One of our primary goals at Kariba (the team behind Open Source Observer) is to build a network of Impact Data Scientists. However, “Impact Data Scientist” isn’t a career path that currently exists. It’s not even a job description that currently exists.

This post is a first step in changing that. In it, we discuss:

1. Why we think the Impact Data Scientist is an important job of the future
2. The characteristics and job spec of an Impact Data Scientist
3. Ways to get involved if you are an aspiring Impact Data Scientist

One important caveat. This post is focused on building a network of Impact Data Scientists that serve crypto open source software ecosystems. In the long run, we hope to see Impact Data Scientists work in all sorts of domains. We are starting in crypto because there is already a strong culture around supporting open source software and decentralizing grantmaking decisions. We hope this culture of building in public and experimenting crosses over to non-crypto grantmaking ecosystems. When it does, we’d love to help build a network of Impact Data Scientists in those places too!

In baseball, there’s an advanced statistic called WAR, short for Wins Above Replacement. It measures a player’s overall contribution to their team by comparing them to a “replacement-level” player—a hypothetical average player who could easily be brought in from the bench or minor leagues. The higher a player’s WAR, the more valuable they are to their team.

Now, let’s apply this concept to decentralized networks like Ethereum or its Layer 2s, which steward ecosystems of public goods including infrastructure, libraries, and permissionless protocols.

Just as baseball teams aim to build the best roster, ecosystem funds and crypto foundations strive to create the strongest community of developers and users within their networks. They attract these participants through incentive programs like grants and airdrops.

But how can the success of these initiatives be effectively measured? One approach is to evaluate how well these programs retain community members and generate compounding network effects compared to the average across the broader crypto landscape. The best networks are the ones that achieve the highest WAR outright or per unit of capital allocated.

This post explores how an empirically-derived metric similar to WAR might be applied to ecosystem grants programs as a way of measuring ROI. It includes some use case ideas (like a WAR oracle) and strawman WAR formulas for protocols and open source software (OSS) projects. It concludes with some ideas for getting started.

While this is currently a thought experiment, it’s something we at OSO are seriously considering as we develop more advanced metrics for measuring impact.

The voting results for Optimism's Retro Funding Round 4 (RF4) were tallied last week and shared with the community.

This is the last in a series of posts on RF4, analyzing the ballot data from different angles. First, we cover high-level trends among voters. Then, we compare voters’ expressed preferences (from a pre-round survey) against their revealed preferences (from the voting data). Finally, we perform some clustering analysis on the votes and identify three distinct “blocs” of voters.

Retro Funding aims for iteration and improvement. We hope these insights can inform both the evolution of impact metrics and governance discussions around impact, badgeholder composition, and round design.

You can find links to our work here.

At Open Source Observer, we have been committed to building everything in the open from the very beginning. Today, we take that openness to the next level by launching the OSO Data Exchange on Google BigQuery. Here, we will publish every data set we have as live, up-to-date, and free to use datasets. In addition to sharing every model in the OSO production data pipeline, we are sharing source data for blocks/transactions/traces across the OP Superchain (including Optimism, Base, Frax, Metal, Mode, PGN, Zora), Gitcoin Data, and OpenRank. This builds on the existing BigQuery public data ecosystem that includes GitHub, Ethereum, Farcaster, and Lens data. To learn more, check out the data portal here:

opensource.observer/data

This post is a brief exploration of the before-after impact of Optimism’s Retro Funding (RF) on open source software (OSS) projects. For context, see some of our previous work on the Optimism ecosystem and especially this one from the start of RF3 in November 2023.

We explore:

1. Cohort analysis. Most RF3 projects were also in RF2. However, most projects in RF4 are new to the game.
2. Trends in developer activity before/after RF3. Builder numbers are up across the board since RF3, even when compared to a baseline cohort of other projects in the crypto ecosystem that have never received RF.
3. Onchain activity before/after RF3. Activity is increasing for most onchain projects, especially returning ones. However, RF impact is hard to isolate because L2 activity is rising everywhere.
4. Open source incentives. Over 50 projects turned their GitHubs public to apply for RF4. Will building in public become the norm or were they just trying to get into the round?

As always, we've included source code for all our analysis (and even CSV dumps of the underlying data), so you can check our work and draw your own conclusions.

Voting for Optimism’s fourth round of Retroactive Public Goods Funding (“Retro Funding”) opened on June 27 and will run until July 11, 2024. You can check out the voting interface here.

As discussed in our companion post, Impact Metrics for Optimism Retro Funding 4, the round is a significant departure from the previous three rounds. This round, voters will be comparing just 16 metrics – and using their ballots to construct a weighting function that can be applied consistently to the roughly 200 projects in the round.

This post is a deeper dive on the work we did at Open Source Observer to help organize data about projects and prepare Optimism badgeholders for voting.

Filecoin’s first RetroPGF round ("FIL RetroPGF 1") concluded last week, awarding nearly 200,000 FIL to 99 (out of 106 eligible) projects.

For a full discussion of the results, I strongly recommend reading Kiran Karra’s article for CryptoEconLab. It includes some excellent data visualizations as well as links to raw data and anonymized voting results.

This post will explore the results from a different angle, looking specifically at three aspects:

1. How the round compared to Optimism’s most recent round (RetroPGF3)
2. How impact was presented to badgeholders
3. How open source software impact was rewarded by badgeholders

It will conclude with some brief thoughts on how metrics can help with evaluation in future RetroPGF rounds.

As always, you can view the analysis notebooks here and run your own analysis using Open Source Observer data by going here. If you want additional context for how the round was run, check out the complete Notion guide here.

Open Source Observer is working with the Optimism Collective and its badgeholder community to develop a suite of impact metrics for assessing projects applying for Retro Funding 4.

Introduction​

Retro Funding 4 is the Optimism Collective’s first experiment with Metrics-based Evaluation. The hypothesis is that by leveraging quantitative metrics, citizens are able to more accurately express their preferences for the types of impact they want to reward, as well as make more accurate judgements of the impact delivered by individual projects.

In contrast to other Retro Funding experiments, badgeholders will not vote on individual projects but will rather vote via selecting and weighting a number of metrics which measure different types of impact.

The Optimism Foundation has published high level guidance on the types of impact that will be rewarded:

• Demand generated for Optimism blockspace
• Interactions from repeat Optimism users
• Interactions from Optimism users with high trust scores / onchain reputations
• Interactions of new Optimism users
• Open source license of contract code

The round is expected to receive applications from hundreds of projects building on six Superchain networks (OP Mainnet, Base, Frax, Metal, Mode, and Zora). Details for the round can be found here.

At Open Source Observer, our objective is to help the Optimism community arrive at up to 20 credible impact metrics that can be applied to projects with contracts on the Superchain.

This page explains where the metrics come from and includes a working list of all metrics under consideration for badgeholders. We will update it regularly, at least until the start of voting (June 23), to reflect the evolution of metrics. The first version metrics was released on 2024-05-16 and the most recent version (below) was released on 2024-06-24.