Eigentrust sounds awesome. I was really excited about it when first discovered, but thought that people won't have a good reason to fill out their trust weights. Grant money allocation could be a perfect motivator.
I wonder if it's good to pre-fill the trust weights (e.g. based on AF upvotes history), to make it easier for users (and motivate those who strongly disagree with their defaults)
Thank you for offering to volunteer with this, I'll definitely reach out if I decide to run the fellowship with Eigentrust.
Did you mean lower amount?
Unconditional Grants to Worthy Individuals Are GreatThe process of applying for grants, raising money, and justifying your existence sucks.
A lot.
It especially sucks for many of the creatives and nerds that do a lot of the best work.
If you have to periodically go through this process, and are forced to continuously worry about making your work legible and how others will judge it, that will substantially hurt your true productivity. At best it is a constant distraction. By default, it is a severe warping effect. A version of this phenomenon is doing huge damage to academic science.
Compelled by this, I'm considering funding ~three people for two years each to work on whatever... (read 208 more words →)
I appreciate your thoughts.
I buy the reasoning that "delegating selection to the hive" could be suboptimal.
Also, as you have pointed out, the very best of the hive already have budgets to distribute or don't have spare time for this for other reasons.
Your exact proposal though implies that I can pick 10 wise and smart people (which is somewhat manageable, but I'd be still mostly deferring to a consensus opinion), and that I can make a final pick (which I most certainly can't, besides doing a "vibe-check")
I like the idea to make nominators secret to each other, to minimize the influence of social dynamics.