Idea Categorisation Analysis
  • Overview
  • Approaches
    • Overview
    • Broad vs Specific Categorisations
    • Inclusive vs Exclusive Categorisations
    • Unique vs Overlapping Categorisations
    • Recurring vs Changing Categorisations
  • Advantages Of Suggested Idea Categories
    • Overview
    • Efficient
    • Simple
    • Flexible
    • Scalable
    • Effectively Directs Funding
    • Egalitarian
    • Promotes Healthy Competition
  • Analysis
    • Incentives & Game Theory For Open Source Development
    • Community Priorities & Idea Proposal Supply Dynamics
    • Addressing Concerns & Challenging Funding Situations
      • High Proposal Competition
        • Proposers With Fewer Resources Considerations
      • Low Proposal Visibility
      • Reducing Idea Generation
      • Decreased Proposal Submission Encouragement
      • Difficulty Directing Funding
      • Reduced Verifiability
      • Less Specialised Challenge Teams
      • Not Enough Proposals Submitted
      • Low Quality Proposals
      • High Quality Proposals Cannot Be Submitted
      • Excessive Funding Requests
    • Alternative Idea Funding Categorisations
      • One categorisation
      • Three categorisations
      • Four categorisations (Recommended)
    • Approaches For Directing Funding
    • Egalitarian Funding Categorisation
    • Focus Area Categorisation Approaches
  • Experimental Categories Analysis
    • Small & Early Stage Ideas Category
      • Use Cases & Types Of Proposer
      • Category Rule Approaches
  • 🔗Links
    • Funding Categorisation Analysis
    • All Documentation
    • Suggest Changes & Give Feedback
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. Advantages Of Suggested Idea Categories

Overview

Reasons why the suggested idea funding categories offer a better solution for idea based funding categorisations

PreviousRecurring vs Changing CategorisationsNextEfficient

Last updated 2 years ago

The suggested are an effective approach for idea based funding categorisation that offer a number of advantages:

  • - Funding categories can be far more efficient than challenge setting as they remove the amount of effort needed to propose, assess and vote on categorisation changes.

  • - Funding categorisation does not need to be complex. Making funding categorisation complex, as it is with challenge settings, yields little benefit when compared to funding categories which use recurring, inclusive and broad categorisation. Effort is removed for justifying categorisations and drastically reduced for dealing with budget weighting decisions.

  • - Funding categories are a far more flexible form of funding categorisation as they are both broad and inclusive. A number of undesirable situations around proposal submission and quality can occur that funding categories can effectively handle due to the approaches flexibility to a changing environment.

  • - There is a need for categorisation to scale to a global audience. Funding categories removes a number of processes and governance decisions by using recurring categories. The repeatable categories lead to better insights and data that in the future can lead to automated suggestions and decisions on dealing with budget weighting.

  • - Using funding categories with an independent objective setting process removes the unpredictability of directing funding with challenge settings and give the community an effective process for directing funding from the treasury.

  • - Treasury distribution aimed at a global audience benefits from being egalitarian and fair to those who get involved. Funding categories offer inclusive categorisation that helps to ensure all forms of idea and innovation from anyone in the world can be submitted.

  • - Funding categories use broad categorisation which helps promote healthy competition by letting multiple proposal types compete for a fixed amount of funding in each categorisation.

idea funding categories
Efficient
Simple
Flexible
Scalable
Effectively directs funding
Egalitarian
Promotes healthy competition