One thing that I hope will be done better going forward is that everybody can and should express their opinion on votes. That most definitely includes you @luis and @jorge. You both currently have the best “high view” of what is best for the project so I am pretty sure your opinion matters a lot to ANT holders.
In the post regarding the dissolving of Flock grants is said the following that very much applies here: “Being able to assess the quality of the work requires a very large amount of context”.
For sure! This is working exactly the same way for predictions; they can only be as good as the context used to make them. ANT votes are essentially trying to predict what decision will lead to the best outcome. In other words, indeed, when ANT holders are expected to vote on stuff they have ridiculously low information about, the quality of the vote will tend to either low-quality, low-participation or both. I don’t believe ANT holders are here to do investigative work, only small questions if anything. ANT holders are the board and the executives must report to them so together they can steer the project properly.
We must find ways to keep ANT holders informed efficiently. This was important before but failure was an option given AA had the last word. It won’t be once we switch to phase 3.
These experiments were great, I have learned a lot and I’m sure others have too.