Programs such as Unexplored Projects, where applicants propose projects and the PM selects the selected projects and accompanies them for about 6 months, are not compatible with Quadratic Voting.
- This is due to the fact that the nature of “accompanying” is different from that of money
- Quadratic Voting is a consensus-building mechanism that may or may not be suitable for some situations, such as the nature of the goods to be distributed. It should be noted that it is not a magic wand that makes everything better.
Specific examples
- There are four PMs.
- Suppose Project A receives votes 1,1,1,1 and Project B receives votes 15,0,0,0
- At this time, Quadratic Voting selects project A
- From PM1’s point of view, it appears that “Project B, which I pushed for, was rejected because the other PMs did not understand it.
- Even if we were to accompany Project A (+1), it would be difficult to have the same enthusiasm as for Project B (+15)
This is due to the fact that the resource of “enthusiasm” tightly coupled with the individual cannot be separated and is difficult to control externally
- Programs that offer “enthusiasm” as a value must think carefully about how to produce more of this valuable resource.
What I wrote here is that QV is not suited to provide “companionship.”
- Conversely, the “funding” part, which removes the accompaniment, does not.
- For example, I think Quadratic Funding is a possible solution to the problem that both software and hardware projects of the unexplored juniors are not good with a budget of 500,000.
relevance
- Innovations in Selection and Screening - 🐴 (horse)
- What prompted me to write this article
-
In some cases, the current item-by-item scoring may be suitable for review under different conditions, while in others, secondary voting (Quadratic Voting) or Quadratic Funding may be more appropriate.
- I totally agree with the point that some conditions are not suitable for others, and I thought it would be better to verbalize “in what cases are/are they suitable” and “in what cases are they not suitable”.
- Unexplored Junior believes that “scores should not be evaluated by sums or averages.
- Generalists are selected when evaluated by sum
- This method does not require consensus building among multiple mentors in the first place.
- In some cases, the “harmonic mean of rankings” is used when ranking for footnotes. - Harmonized average of ranks to get the sharpest talent
- social cut corners are curtailed by making it “one PM’s discernment” instead of “adopted by consensus of multiple people.”
- If the adopted project ends up with an iffy result, it is because of the PM’s poor discernment skills.
- PMs have an incentive to believe in their own discernment abilities and support the projects they adopt, even if other PMs do not evaluate them.
- Direct matching is important for human network formation
- Even as a Human Network Formation System, it is preferable to have a clear individual adopt it rather than a vague organization.
- Connoisseur of connoisseurs
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/伴走型プログラムの採択にQVは向いていない using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.