Possible solution: Being able to avoid duplicated efforts and being beaten to the mark by short, hasty answers by reserving the ability to answer first, by contributing some of your own money (20% of the current bounty?) to the bounty. If your answer isn’t Accepted, it’s a loss, so you have to be confident.
You get a finite amount of time to answer in, maybe the donation percentage should be an increasing function of the amount of time you reserved. It should be set by the asking party.
How much control do you want to give to the asking party? Smart people ask lots of questions, but so do stupid people. You can’t guarantee that they’re going to have good judgement about what qualifies as a valid answer. I see so many conflicts of interest, the asker might choose to decline the confident answerer’s answer, copy the text and answer the question themselves, not only would they get the answer for free, they’d make a profit from the reserve contribution.
I suppose it really cannot be left to a single judge. Maybe we should ask why the question asker has any right to judge answer validity at all, maybe that should be left to the epistemic community.
Possible solution: Being able to avoid duplicated efforts and being beaten to the mark by short, hasty answers by reserving the ability to answer first, by contributing some of your own money (20% of the current bounty?) to the bounty. If your answer isn’t Accepted, it’s a loss, so you have to be confident.
You get a finite amount of time to answer in, maybe the donation percentage should be an increasing function of the amount of time you reserved. It should be set by the asking party.
How much control do you want to give to the asking party? Smart people ask lots of questions, but so do stupid people. You can’t guarantee that they’re going to have good judgement about what qualifies as a valid answer. I see so many conflicts of interest, the asker might choose to decline the confident answerer’s answer, copy the text and answer the question themselves, not only would they get the answer for free, they’d make a profit from the reserve contribution.
I suppose it really cannot be left to a single judge. Maybe we should ask why the question asker has any right to judge answer validity at all, maybe that should be left to the epistemic community.