Other: Vitalik Buterin wrote, “Conditional payments for paywalled content—after you pay for a piece of downloadable content and view it, you can decide after the fact if payments should go to the author or to proportionately refund previous readers”. He also sketched out a mechanism by which mail recipients can price spammers out of their attention: https://ethresear.ch/t/conditional-proof-of-stake-hashcash/1301 I like these two ideas because they directly help individuals economize their own attention, even if they aren’t exactly civilizational sanity interventions in the way you’re talking about.
Regarding DACs: I think a sponsor of an initiative implementing DACs serves as an antisignal for confidence in the project’s potential for success, thereby indicating lack of confidence in the proposal’s compellingness, plus (theoretically at least) a project which would succeed with DACs would be highly likely to be crowdfunded anyways, and combine that with a risk of having a vague resemblance to lay people with Ponzi schemes, and it may explain the current lack of popularity of DACs, despite having been known and easily feasible for >20 years
I guess I hope I’m wrong about this, more public coordination would always be nice. There’s always the classic joke about the economist walking with a friend, when his friend points out a $20 bill on the ground. “Your eyes must deceive you! If it was actually there, someone else would have picked it up!”
I like Buterin’s conditional payments proposal. Ensures a reasonable net price for content, proportional to quality of the content, and it allows for punishing clickbait, while removing personal incentive to cheat good producers out of deserved rewards.
It would especially be useful to help alleviate the refund controversy that’s been going on with videogames
Electoral reform: The proponents of Random Sample Voting make it sound pretty cool. Appendix 1 in this white paper gives an efficient summary: https://rsvoting.org/whitepaper/white_paper.pdf
Kickstartery things: Dominant Assurance Contracts (DACs) are similar to regular assurance contracts (including Kickstarter campaigns), except with tweaked incentives that attract pledges from otherwise indifferent parties. For explanation and discussion, I recommend these links: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2017/06/07/alex-tabarrok/making-markets-work-better-dominant-assurance-contracts-some-other-helpful http://jessic.at/writing/dac.pdf
Other: Vitalik Buterin wrote, “Conditional payments for paywalled content—after you pay for a piece of downloadable content and view it, you can decide after the fact if payments should go to the author or to proportionately refund previous readers”. He also sketched out a mechanism by which mail recipients can price spammers out of their attention: https://ethresear.ch/t/conditional-proof-of-stake-hashcash/1301 I like these two ideas because they directly help individuals economize their own attention, even if they aren’t exactly civilizational sanity interventions in the way you’re talking about.
Regarding DACs: I think a sponsor of an initiative implementing DACs serves as an antisignal for confidence in the project’s potential for success, thereby indicating lack of confidence in the proposal’s compellingness, plus (theoretically at least) a project which would succeed with DACs would be highly likely to be crowdfunded anyways, and combine that with a risk of having a vague resemblance to lay people with Ponzi schemes, and it may explain the current lack of popularity of DACs, despite having been known and easily feasible for >20 years
I guess I hope I’m wrong about this, more public coordination would always be nice. There’s always the classic joke about the economist walking with a friend, when his friend points out a $20 bill on the ground. “Your eyes must deceive you! If it was actually there, someone else would have picked it up!”
I like Buterin’s conditional payments proposal. Ensures a reasonable net price for content, proportional to quality of the content, and it allows for punishing clickbait, while removing personal incentive to cheat good producers out of deserved rewards.
It would especially be useful to help alleviate the refund controversy that’s been going on with videogames