Contributor vs voter idea selection

:bulb: Who should select which ideas get executed? Should it be community voters or the contributors that the community has selected? - Contributor vs voter idea selection - Disbursement

:bust_in_silhouette: Selecting contributors and giving them the responsibility to select the most promising ideas is the more scalable and accountable approach, the incentives are highly aligned and giving the responsibility of self selecting the most impactful ideas to work on is highly practical due their growing expertise and experience.

:white_check_mark: Community voters need to select which contributors will receive compensation. Contributors need to be incentivised to execute impactful ideas.

:x: Community voters do not have to select ideas. This is a disbursement system design choice and one that drastically increases the complexity for voters to participate in disbursement. Voters do not need to select ideas for impactful ideas to get executed.

:dart: Community voters massively benefit from being able to suggest and select the priorities which they believe are the most important for the ecosystem. Finding out what the community most values can then directly influence the contributors that get selected and the ideas that get suggested and executed. Community priority selection provides a high leverage and far lower effort approach for enabling a community to influence the outcome of disbursement. Priority setting is far more scalable for a growing number of community members to participate in than trying to compare and select many ideas.

:ballot_box: Voters would always have a high influence on the ideas that get executed as they would be the ones who select the most important priorities and the contributors that will help with addressing those priorities. The community should also have the same ability to suggest ideas and share their preferences and opinion about how those ideas get improved and executed - https://disbursement.treasuries.co/outcome-influence/voter-preferences-and-opinions


-----

As a thought exercise how does IOG operate. Does every team accept votes from other teams on what they will execute? Or are the teams themselves responsible for deciding what they execute?
The other employees across IOG likely can provide their preferences and opinions to anywhere across the company. However the individuals in the team itself are who is responsible to selecting and executing the most promising ideas. It would not make sense for a company to get employees to vote on the execution efforts of other teams they are not part of as they are not the ones accountable for the outcomes of that work.

In Catalyst this same example is even far worse than an IOG example, as Catalyst is accepting an even larger community to vote on ideas that should be executed, voters who have even less context about each area. The complexity for the voter is excessive even if they narrow down their area of focus. Giving the responsibility to a DRep is also not a solution that improves the approach itself, it’s an additive solution that can be used with any decision approach to help make it easier for voters, it doesn’t mean the original approach isn’t highly flawed.

Delegated idea selection (Contributors / teams making their own decisions) is the most adopted and scaled approach across the world today. This is how large groups of individuals in the same organisation currently operate and for good reason - responsibility is given to those who are suitable to have it, the organisations responsibility as a whole is just to find and retain high quality contributors who can work across these ideas.

1 Like