Search Ideas
915 ideas match your query.:
Need to address the risk of the initiator himself being a bad actor who rejects pending criticisms for arbitrary reasons just to avoid paying.
Need to address the risk of people submitting arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to exclude criticisms from the bounty.
The grace period prevents abuse from people other than the bounty initiator.
But the initiator himself could be a bad actor who rejects pending criticisms for arbitrary reasons just to avoid paying.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks, say, per pending criticism received by some deadline.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). The user also indicates a ceiling for the maximum amount they are willing to spend.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.
To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. They may even award a bounty to problematic criticisms, at their discretion. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period. If doing so would exceed the ceiling, more recent criticisms do not get the bounty.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per pending criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs).
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.
The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per pending criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each pending criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all unproblematic criticisms equally.
That could result in amounts too small to cover transaction costs.
There could be a grace period. For example, 24 hours after the bounty ends, no new criticisms can be posted on the bountied idea. That way, the bounty initiator have time to review pending criticisms.
and others
If others can still participate, it’s not really a grace period.
What happens if they neglect to review pending criticisms?
There could be a grace period. For example, 24 hours after the bounty ends, no new criticisms can be posted on the bountied idea. That way, the bounty initiator and others have time to review pending criticisms.
What if every criticism on the bountied idea creates a separate authorization? The bounty initiator would add their card on file and then every time someone submits a criticism, the card is authorized for the per-criticism amount.
People who have submitted criticisms hope to get paid. They have an incentive to submit arbitrary counter-criticisms to others’ criticisms to increase their own share of the pie.
If they have submitted criticisms, they may get paid. So they have an incentive to submit arbitrary counter-criticisms to others’ criticisms.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all unproblematic criticisms equally.
That doesn’t address the possibility of others submitting arbitrary criticisms just before the deadline.
What if Veritula charges the card immediately and holds the funds?
Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.