On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 6:12 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > On 9/10/2019 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > If not, we’re gating proposals out of an > > abstract opinion that they ought to be gated rather than because it’s in > > anyone’s interest. > > I could say it's a load on everyone (i.e. the "voters") when lots of > proposals get submitted without much thought, but that's not really it. > The real reason is, it's a game. Part of games are the challenges that > come > from limiting actions. Since we change the rules, sometimes we want to > gamify proposals in that matter. > > I know you've historically been very against proposal fees, and I've > generally been for them, but it's not for a deep philosophical reason other > than "some of us want to play that way for a while." > > All that said, just putting a coin fee on proposals doesn't make proposal > fees "interesting", there has to be some deeper play than that to make it > worthwhile...
I know interesting systems have existed at various points in the past. That said, I’ve never seen one in practice, so I’m a intensely skeptical of any claim that a new system is going to fit into that category. -Aris
