Skip to content
  • Welcome
  • Cases
Skins
  • Light
  • Dark

Collapse

Authored Eternity

Grants should require sustained threshold support over time, not just a momentary majority

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
1 Posts 1 Posters 1 Views
This claim has been deleted. Only users with claim management privileges can see it.
Here is how I think grant voting should work. Each proposal would carry a threshold — a percentage of total donor support required before it passes, scaled to the size of the ask. Votes would be liquid throughout: donors can allocate, move, and reconsider freely. A grant passes when it has accumulated 24 hours above its threshold. If support drops below threshold, the clock pauses and resumes where it left off once support recovers. The threshold holds flat for the first three days, then begins to decay slowly and then faster as time passes. The 24-hour window exists because this community is international. A vote that could close in four hours can close while half the membership is asleep with no real opportunity to participate. Accumulated hours mean a proposal must hold the genuine attention of a global community long enough for anyone who wants to weigh in to actually do so. The threshold decay after day three acknowledges something real: a proposal that has been visible to the full community for days without reaching threshold but also without being actively defeated is not the same as a proposal that nobody has looked at. Persistent minority interest, sustained and unopposed over time, is a signal worth responding to. The decay is slow at first and accelerates — not to make passing easy, but to ensure that genuinely supported proposals are not held hostage indefinitely by a community that has neither endorsed nor rejected them. It also ensures that no proposal lingers in permanent limbo: the decaying threshold guarantees that every proposal either passes, loses its funding to a more supported grant, or reaches a point where the community's silence becomes its own answer. When cycle funds are exhausted, any proposals that can no longer be afforded are removed and every donor's votes are returned in full. Within an active cycle, breadth-first refunds prevent large donors from gaming timing by cycling votes in and out — refunds flow across the widest number of donors before fully restoring any individual's position.
Claims in This Case
Grants should require sustained threshold support over time, not just a momentary majority
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Welcome
  • Cases