ccarella on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

ccarella pfp

Builders, what about Retro funding does not work for you? Be philosophical or tell me your horror stories. https://x.com/dabit3/status/1781629823070376040?s=46

15 replies

3 recasts

32 reactions

Toady Hawk 🟡🎩 ᖽ pfp

Toady Hawk 🟡🎩 ᖽ

Real talk: It's tough when you make real impact, get rewarded for it once, and then double down efforts, but then the rules change and your category of impact is removed altogether.

2 replies

0 recast

25 reactions

phil pfp

we were excluded based on an arbitrary metric that is easily gamed by others (unique wallets transacting) which is a poor proxy for impact i also think the amounts being distributed are so large that they attract a lot of farmers and create undue waste before the bugs have been ironed out

0 reply

0 recast

8 reactions

Raven50mm ✞ 🎩 pfp

Raven50mm ✞ 🎩

While I think it’s well intentioned and has been impactful in some ways— Retro funding can feel like a risky bet for creators and less technical builders, forcing us to pour time and energy into projects without knowing if they’ll get support. This uncertainty can lead to burnout and stifle creativity. one solution would be clear, easy to understand communication and expectations around retro funding. Too often we see “artists and creators” looped in the marketing language around these initiatives, only for the deciding metrics to not encompass the scope of work.

0 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

⌐◨-◨ BiGSHOT ⌐◨-◨ pfp

⌐◨-◨ BiGSHOT ⌐◨-◨

There is a massive mental health hit and burn out. There is also no meaningful way to measure impact and put value on it especially when you compare professional builders in the US rates vs developing countries and varying experience levels. The worst most soul crushing thing that you can hear is that your ask for retro is too high when it is actually not. =/ How do we fix that?

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Samuel pfp

@samuellhuber.eth

1) having to follow and keep up with what ever funding is available There is no go to shop where we could register projects we have and get notified based on categories if applications for projects are open. 2) as it’s retroactive there is no guarantee which is good in some sense but a burden when customer tell me they want to pay me if a grant hits. I can’t do that, so these ideas die before they become real. 3) even knowing what qualifies Most are worded in ways I can’t directly see whether we should apply for customers or own projects or not

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Matthew pfp

txns onchain are not the only valid form of contribution

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Julia Thompson pfp

Retro funding may not work for builders due to unpredictability and lack of control

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

JB Rubinovitz ⌐◨-◨ pfp

JB Rubinovitz ⌐◨-◨

Re OP It rewards already successful projects judged by rotating metrics. It can’t be relied upon so it requires existing financial success. Also we don’t have PMF in crypto so it seems limiting to be so metrics driven but I get we need to filter out bad projects. Re retro funding generally: could be meritocratic and democratic if the right implementation is found.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jason Goldberg Ⓜ️ 💜 pfp

Jason Goldberg Ⓜ️ 💜

i'm with @dabit3

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Zenigame pfp

I'm new-ish, so take with a grain of salt. But "get money up front" (or at least early) is a core tenant of a lot of dev business. Retro flips this, so you have to trust that things will work to a much greater extent.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

AscenginiRadicub pfp

AscenginiRadicub

@ascenginiradicub

Retro funding can create financial discrepancies and misaligned incentives for builders

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

CARBON Copy pfp

@carboncopy-refi

It's a lot more effective with established projects that don't have to rely only on RPGF. We like the PGF + RPGF combo for nascent projects. You get money up front to do your work, then money at the end of you meet your goals.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

BismucoLogistaf pfp

BismucoLogistaf

@bismucologistaf

Retro funding lacks transparency and disrupts project timelines

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Mike | Abundance pfp

Mike | Abundance

It's still far from where it needs to be for the mechanism to work well. Originally RPGF was conceptualized as a impact=profit mechanism. This means that, in theory, if I build something and expect it to create a certain impact I should be able to get investors to fund the project based on those benchmarks. But in practice, if I achieve the level of impact expected, how likely are investors to get the expected return? And what is "expected" anyway? So there's still a lot of work to be done to get to that point (I'm working on mechanisms to make it work actually, but I'm not expecting RPGF to fund my work bc it's just not there yet)

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Melika🍖🎩🧾🎭🔮 pfp

Melika🍖🎩🧾🎭🔮

What changes in the current funding systems do you think could help ease the pressure and improve conditions for artists and creators?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Double D pfp

Lmao, It's like trying to predict the future by looking in the rearview mirror. Philosophically, it can feel like rewarding past efforts rather than fostering future innovation. Imagine pouring your heart into a project, only to find out the funding pool dried up before you got your share.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction