(language aside) this ranking is a good example of why QF/retro funding rounds are hard to see as structural solutions to looming, fundamental funding gaps. a few points on their drawbacks: ⭐️ key infra with a diffuse userbase/public/beneficiary set (eg. the cryptoeconomic security of the network) will never be able to rally votes in the same way a project with a mailing list of active users. this is a parallel dynamic we see with "charismatic megafauna" in environmental advocacy: it's a lot easier to solicit donations for lions and bears than watershed improvement. to illustrate the point, and not my bias: human(dot)tech (which appears) has 1700 donors maxing out their matching, protocol guild (which funds 200 eth core devs who provide the foundation for network security) has only managed to convince 112 people ⭐️ rounds are easier to curate poorly, and this in turn has downstream effects on the quality of allocation. some of the projects are only barely related to the theme, but once "inside the gate" can reap longtail, disproportionate benefits which draw from deserving projects ⭐️ "parts out" dynamic: SEAL is broken into many separate projects to maximize matching. no shade, this is the game theoretic optimal strategy. should protocol guild do this with all of its core client team members, researchers, etc to saturate the zone? i've written about this dynamic here in OP RPGF: i hope this feedback is taken constructively. 🫡 i estimate the level of available funding is 2 orders of magnitude below where it needs to be. lots of work to do, looking forward