Noted. I am after all human and building in this space, can be frustrating. I would like to think my posting to the forum represents an emotional, as well as a rational side. That is ok in my book.
This is a good question - and cuts to the heart of why we need to understand the challenge of raising the collective intelligence here as one of semantics.
I think differently to you, you think differently to me and therefore what seems on-topic for me, may seem off-topic to you or others.
I see connections where you don’t. I’m sure the reverse would be true for posts that were maybe more technical.
The Quadratic post is specific in its focus on a type of voting system - but its presentation is directly attributable to @brenzi’s recent experience with Encointer and explaining the purpose / value / rationale for public goods.
You take his starting point, and then move on quickly from his specific ‘tool’ suggestion (the subject) and move down a rung on the intuition ladder by suggesting this isn’t a good approach, instead:
and then.
I agree with this but you have moved one level “off topic”, and it is from here that you then make your case about different voting systems.
I read this, and the original post and from this point on, due to the way I think, its clear this is not a debate about Quadratic Voting, the real issue is at a much lower level, namely the tension between public funding (that will not obviously accrue value to the token, hence skepticism) and public funding, which @brenzi is focused on supporting via this particular toolset.
We can see this insight as two or perhaps three levels below the original topic, but still directly connected to the reason for the suggestion of Quadratic Voting.
It is this framing - of what I would contend are closer to the real issues, that I then take as forward steps - this is perhaps my problem of not being clear the way I think to make what then feels like an intellectual leap.
The leap I make is about how to address the seemingly intractable challenge of both funding public goods and making NGU.
The point I make from this point is about how we need to think about public —-> private goods as a funding and support process, rather than trying to perfect some perfect single function to keep everyone happy. This won’t work.
Are you familiar with Toyota’s five whys?
Five whys (or 5 whys) is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question “Why?” five times. The answer to the fifth why should reveal the root cause of the problem.[2]
For the majority of the issues we see come around again and again in the ecosystem, it’s because people don’t inquire deeply enough about the real reason for a particular symptom.
We see this problem everywhere in the modern world - in fact (to go a few step further “off topic”) modern medicine treats the symptoms of illnesses, rather than the root causes.
Have depression? Here’s this pill. Cures - perhaps working less, spending more time with friends and family, walking in nature are not profitable, simply because they are not commercial.
It is better to let problems continue and indeed profit from the new problems caused by the treatment of the original one. The system corrupts itself through badly misaligned incentives, which is where we come back to your key point about “outcomes”.
Crypto imo is for the most part this same story. Slowly fixing hard, boring problems like how to sustainably fund public goods does not make for a sexy keynote presentation nor material for influencers to tempt token holders into NGU level fomo.