Key Points
The funding allocation in Filecoin’s first RetroPGF round showed a very flat distribution compared to Optimism’s RetroPGF3. This means there was not a large gap in funding amounts between high-impact projects and mid-tier projects.
Background
How resources are allocated in retrospective public goods funding reflects the values and evaluation mechanisms of the ecosystem. By comparing the results of Filecoin’s first round with the more mature Optimism round, we can highlight their characteristics.
Analysis Method
Dataset
Allocation data for 99 projects from Filecoin RetroPGF 1 and allocation data from Optimism RetroPGF3
Intervation / Explanatory Variable
Type of funding program (Filecoin RetroPGF 1 vs. Optimism RetroPGF3)
Dependent Variable
Distribution of funding amounts across projects
Identification Strategy
Visualizing the distribution of funding amounts in both rounds and comparing their shapes (flatness)
Results
- In Filecoin, the top project (GLIF Nodes & RPC API) received 4,365 FIL, which was only about twice as much as the median project (Filemarket), which received 1,925 FIL.
- This allocation is described as a relatively even “peanut butter spread” distribution.
- This distribution was much flatter than Optimism’s RetroPGF3.
- In Filecoin, there was also little difference in funding amounts across categories. Although the “Infrastructure” category was generally favored, the distribution within that category was just as flat as in other categories. In contrast, Optimism showed more pronounced differences by theme.