Key Points
Bootstrap analysis demonstrated that the number of badgeholders (33 participants in FIL-RetroPGF-2) is a reasonable scale for estimating the “true signal” of funding allocation.
Background
Decision-making by a small number of voters carries the risk of significant variation depending on how the voter group is selected. Therefore, it was necessary to verify whether the funding allocation results by the 33 participating badgeholders remained stable, even if a different set of members had been chosen.
Analysis Method
Dataset
All voting data cast by badgeholders in FIL-RetroPGF-2
Intervation / Explanatory Variable
Subsets of badgeholders (randomly sampled, ranging from 28 to 33 members)
Dependent Variable
Distribution of funding allocations to projects
Identification Strategy
Analysis was conducted using the bootstrap method. Specifically, 1,000 subsets were randomly drawn from the actual voting badgeholders, and funding allocations were recalculated for each subset. This allowed for the estimation of confidence intervals for the funding distribution, which were then compared with the actual allocation results.
Results
- The confidence intervals obtained through bootstrap analysis showed little dispersion.
- This indicates that with 33 badgeholders, the overall funding allocation trends would not change significantly even if some voters were replaced, thereby confirming the reliability of the results.
- The interquartile range (IQR) also supports the conclusion that this number of badgeholders is appropriate for capturing the “true signal.”