How can we make sure that the results of everyone’s votes are as close to the true optimal solution as possible?
It may be too early to discuss this idea, as there are only a small number of suggestions that can make it to the voting stage.
I’d like to leave it here before I forget the idea I came up with, and with the hope that even if it’s too early, it will be useful in the future if the discussion spreads.
I think it is necessary to allocate the limited development resources as much as possible in an appropriate order among the truly optimal improvements, in order to outperform competing rivals and to keep 1inch metabolized and used forever without becoming obsolete.
In order to make efficient use of limited development resources, I think the following system would be good.
In addition to voting for or against each proposal individually, the proposals that have come out in a certain period of time can be lined up like candidates in an election, and you can choose which one you will vote for with your limited number of votes.
Of course, the proposals that are not selected will not be immediately scrapped, because even those that are not selected are still great proposals that were candidates for the election. They will be listed again for the next voting opportunity.
The choice not to select any of the candidates should also be affirmed, and if that choice is the most common, it would indicate that all of the listed candidates will not be sent to the next voting opportunity.
In this way, governance participants can simultaneously express their support for the proposal and their priorities.
It will also give them an opportunity to think more deeply about the proposals, as they will have material to compare the merits of each proposal.