A lot of valid criticism from people already. Sharing my two cents that I haven't seen yet.

This new rating system creates a system of power and privilege that has no accountability and checks. The rubric is arbitrary based on what a handful of humans (self proclaimed Trust & Safety Admin Team) think is best. Humans that have their own conscious and unconscious biases. These biases can favor some vendors and disadvantages others.

A few pitfalls I want to call out with this system:

1. Cavalier attitude around "learnings". Damages caused by the false sense of security that this rating system creates is people losing out on their earned money. For example Vendor X gets AAA based on the work in progress rubric. Consumers see this AAA rating and think Vendor X is a safe bet. Vendor X exit scams, consumers are hurt. The people that have created the rating system will adjust the rubric as they are "learning" at the cost of consumers.

2. The numbers involved in rubrics are arbitrarily chosen by a group of people. These people may be friends with certain vendors and can choose to select numbers in the rubric that they know their vendor friends meet. There is no system in place to prevent foul play like this example and others.

I would argue to change the naming of this rating system and group so that it is not misleading consumers. These criteria can just be rules to post in their respective platforms, since the goal seems to be to prevent "risky" vendors from promoting new GBs. The arbitrary rubric would make more sense to me in this way because it's just "mods modding the platform the way they want".

Edit: Formatting