RAF1: Application Feedback

[obol-admin]

This thread is dedicated to gathering feedback on the RAF1 application process.

We encourage all projects to share their thoughts and suggestions after submitting their applications in the RAF portal.

Call for Feedback

We aim to create the best possible experience for RAF applicants. Your input is invaluable in helping us achieve this.

Here are some areas where we’d love your feedback:

• Does the application form provide a smooth experience? Are there possible hurdles or unnecessary friction?

• Did you encounter any difficulties locating the details you needed to complete your application?

Looking forward to your inputs!

[Max5593]

I submitted the application, and everything was quite clear and straightforward. However, I encountered one issue. I created a banner for the profile header myself, tailored to the format required during the application process. After my application passed moderation, I noticed that the banner is displayed incorrectly on some monitors (not at full scale). Adjusting the scale in the browser settings resolves this issue. From this, I conclude that the banner adaptation on the website is not functioning correctly. I kindly ask you to look into this and, if possible, resolve the problem before the voting period begins.
I would like my infographic to be visible in the banner.

[kayvee]

Hello and amazing job team. For the next RAF I would suggest a better ending date than the weekend, as support for technical queries might be unavailable by the weekend. Asides this everything went quite well for me.

[ittimes]

@obol-admin

This thread is dedicated to gathering feedback on the RAF1 application process.

We encourage all projects to share their thoughts and suggestions after submitting their applications in the RAF portal.

Call for Feedback

We aim to create the best possible experience for RAF applicants. Your input is invaluable in helping us achieve this.

Here are some areas where we’d love your feedback:

• Does the application form provide a smooth experience? Are there possible hurdles or unnecessary friction?
• Did you encounter any difficulties locating the details you needed to complete your application?

Looking forward to your inputs!

RAF1 was a fantastic experience!
Getting hands-on with smart contracts was incredibly valuable, and I believe this interactive approach will be highly beneficial for other users as well.

However, I did face one challenge—the “Approve” button was missing at the final step, which left me stuck.

Thankfully, Eliza pointed out that a small amount of Ethereum on the OP chain is required for the button to appear. Once I added some ETH to the OP chain, the button became visible, and I was able to proceed smoothly.

To improve the experience for future applicants, it would be great to have a clear message notifying users that OP Ethereum is needed for gas fees. This would help prevent confusion and make the process even more seamless.

Overall, RAF1 was a great experience, and I truly appreciate the opportunity! Looking forward to seeing even more refinements in the future.

[espejelomar]

I’d like to thank Eliza from the Obol team, who was instrumental in helping us submit our application. She consistently offered assistance and clarity, and without her support, our submission wouldn’t have been the same. We truly appreciate the way you engage with the community and stay informed about the projects that use Obol in any capacity. This level of customer care really stands out and makes us even more satisfied to be working with you.

[nodeguardians]

Thank you for offering the opportunity to provide feedback on the RAF1 application process.

1. Smoothness of the Application Form: Overall, the application form was straightforward to navigate. However, a few areas could benefit from clarification to reduce potential confusion. For instance, it would be helpful if the instructions for submitting impact metrics were more explicit, particularly regarding the format for URLs and numerical data. Adding tooltips or example inputs might further simplify the process.

2. Finding Necessary Details: We did not encounter significant difficulties locating the information needed to complete the application. However, a more detailed guide or a quick reference for what qualifies as a “project impact” could be valuable, particularly for projects like ours that are more focused on community and developer engagement. This would help ensure we’re framing our contributions accurately.

3. Suggestions for Improvement:

• A clearer breakdown of what qualifies for each impact category would be great.
• A summary or checklist at the end of the form to ensure all necessary sections have been completed could help avoid any last-minute oversights.
• Including a “Save Progress” option could be useful for larger projects that require gathering external data before final submission.

We look forward to seeing the continuous improvements and appreciate the efforts to streamline the RAF1 process. Thanks again for the platform and the opportunity to share our feedback!

[yanbili.eth]

I had a very stressful issue at the moment of posting the finished application:
Our project, @RanchoStake hadnt had any previous funding so i didnt type anything in the prompt and actually removed the prompts by clicking the trash can in there. Apparently, it was required to type something in that section even though the site allowed for eliminating the prompt without any “obligatory” or “required” warning on screen or anything. I spent almost an hour trying to figure out why the “submit application” button wasnt working, as it just didnt work without any warning or explanation of why was it just not submitting. At last, I tried putting 0 in the “previous funding” prompt i and became able to submit the application but it was very stressful just not knowing what was going on.

It would be useful and easy to have this fixed maybe with just not letting the applicant remove the obligatory prompts or also maybe just giving a message or warning when clicking the “submit application” button that helps the applicant KNOW why the application is not being submitted.

[JuanRah]

The application was straightforward enough and instructions were clear.

Having said that, a few suggestions for future iterations of the RAF:

1. It is currently necessary to connect a wallet to view projects. This creates an unnecessary friction to review applications say, from a mobile device. Making the projects publicly viewable would make application review easier.

2. A one week period to create the application and the voting process could become challenging, especially as more projects participate in future rounds. Extending this period could allow for a more thorough project review.

3. The Telegram group is valuable to connect directly with delegates, but having a dedicated space, or threads in the Forum for projects to be discussed would give more structure to share questions and generate discussion.

4. Consider integrating the evaluation spreadsheet tool directly into the RAF platform. This would make the review process easier for delegates.

Overall, the process was well organized. It was impressive to see the diverse range of projects strengthening the staking ecosystem.

[ETHKipu]

ETH Kipu Feedback on RAF1

First of all, big thanks to the team for organizing this process. Overall, it was a smooth experience, and we really appreciate the effort put into making it accessible and efficient.

What Went Well

— Clear and straightforward process. Filling out the application was simple, and we didn’t encounter significant roadblocks.
— Stable platform. We had a minor issue where the attestation got “stuck” for a few seconds, but everything worked fine afterward.

Areas for Improvement

— Confusing financial reporting section: The section on previous funding was unclear. None of the options fully applied to us since we’ve only received funding from the Ethereum Foundation, not from any governance system or protocol. It would help to have more flexibility or a more precise option for cases like ours.

— Deadline timing was an issue. The early closing of the application period was the biggest challenge. Not only was it over the weekend (when getting support is more rigid). Ideally, future rounds could allow for a few extra hours on Monday to submit or make last-minute adjustments. We’re not advocating for procrastination, but Sundays can be difficult due to travel, family commitments, or other constraints.

— More structured way to pitch projects to delegates: It would have been great to have a Twitter Space or similar event where participants could showcase their work directly to delegates. This could help projects gain more visibility and give delegates a better sense of the impact behind each proposal.

— Scope was too broad: The categories and scope felt entirely open-ended, which is understandable for a first round. Now that we have a reference point, future iterations could refine categories or provide more precise guidelines on what’s expected in each scope.

Overall, RAF1 was a great initiative, and we’re happy to have been part of it. We hope this feedback helps refine the process for future rounds. Thanks again for the opportunity!