The idea of weighting a decision-making process toward more qualified decision makers (however that is determined)
My opinion:
“however that is determined” is where the magic happens, not a side point
As a naive example to explain what I’m talking about: if we give more weight to experts, there is the question of “how do we decide who are the experts”. Do we use expert experts? Who decides who those are?
The “Software systems” won’t be the challenging part of this project
Beyond, maybe, trying to give every person one vote (one “identity”) that can be used through the internet , which turns out to be really hard to do without huge problems, and the blockchain community is working really hard on already
Agree with these points. In the post, I give a toy example of a possible system in which various forms of contests can be used to assess a member’s ability to contribute. It seems as if identifying good generalists might be an easier task than identifying subject matter experts. I would imagine any process to identify expertise would include credentials and track records but I think it may be more important that a community of people that have already established trustworthiness are willing to take bets on a given individual. I think it’s very likely true that being a good generalist is a prerequisite to being an effective subject matter expert. But, yeah, lots of questions.
My opinion:
“however that is determined” is where the magic happens, not a side point
As a naive example to explain what I’m talking about: if we give more weight to experts, there is the question of “how do we decide who are the experts”. Do we use expert experts? Who decides who those are?
The “Software systems” won’t be the challenging part of this project
Beyond, maybe, trying to give every person one vote (one “identity”) that can be used through the internet , which turns out to be really hard to do without huge problems, and the blockchain community is working really hard on already
Agree with these points. In the post, I give a toy example of a possible system in which various forms of contests can be used to assess a member’s ability to contribute. It seems as if identifying good generalists might be an easier task than identifying subject matter experts. I would imagine any process to identify expertise would include credentials and track records but I think it may be more important that a community of people that have already established trustworthiness are willing to take bets on a given individual. I think it’s very likely true that being a good generalist is a prerequisite to being an effective subject matter expert. But, yeah, lots of questions.