You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Idea is straightforward. Huge amount of cases where 'no' is useful. Existing incentives creates a culture in which props must be structured to 'yay' in order depositors not loose bets. Incentives doesn't not fit to questionaries both binary and scalar. Questionaries are essential for community to discover itself. But we cant remove deposit because it would be easy to spam. My proposal is change purpose of deposit so community must donate up to threshold in order prop become active. All deposits must be burned. In this mechanism every prop must be treated as investment into public good.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Idea is straightforward. Huge amount of cases where 'no' is useful. Existing incentives creates a culture in which props must be structured to 'yay' in order depositors not loose bets. Incentives doesn't not fit to questionaries both binary and scalar. Questionaries are essential for community to discover itself. But we cant remove deposit because it would be easy to spam. My proposal is change purpose of deposit so community must donate up to threshold in order prop become active. All deposits must be burned. In this mechanism every prop must be treated as investment into public good.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: