We believe it is crucial for donors to be informed about the factors influencing their matching scores upfront, enabling them to consciously adjust their behavior. Of course, this transparency could also be used to game the system, but we felt concerned about the unintended negative consequences for some grantees who could have otherwise informed their donors that they would need to also donate to other projects in order for their donations to be eligible for matching. We feel that this kind of information could actually generate positive effects for rounds by encouraging donors to consider all the projects for donation instead of just the projects of their friends. In the future, we may tell our donors something like:
Your donation is a weighted preference vote for which projects should be funded. In order to know how much you value a project, we need to understand your preferences in relationship to at least one other project. If you do find that your preferences are nearly 100% aligned with only one project in the round, please make at least one other small donation to another project to ensure your primary donation is eligible for matching.
Round operators generally say that COCM seems more in-line with the community's actual preferences than QF, however they struggle to explain i) how it works and ii) how to make sure donations are matched
How might we give round operators more usable content for each of these areas?
Some notes on this topic from here:
Round operators generally say that COCM seems more in-line with the community's actual preferences than QF, however they struggle to explain i) how it works and ii) how to make sure donations are matched