Priority Leaderboard
Priorities anchored in practitioner experience (Harmonica sessions and workshops). Evidence from academic research grouped by stance: supporting, contrasting, or extending.
How scores are calculated
Practitioner-Anchored Scoring
Priorities are set by practitioners. The score reflects how strongly a priority is supported across practitioner sources.
Evidence from Knowledge Commons
Evidence is classified by stance: supporting, contrasting, or extending. Evidence does not affect the score -- it provides context for deliberation.
Recalculating scores...
1
Improvement of accuracy in classification
0.40
2
Building trust in non-dilutive funding
0.40
3
Innovative governance designs
0.40
4
Cost reduction in data processing
0.40
5
Establishing a shared taxonomy and metrics
0.40
6
Coordination of funding mechanisms
0.40
Evidence 2 1 1 1
"We need better coordination between grants programs"
"Workshop group identified funding silos as key issue"
"CAMF proposes a new architecture for crypto funding"
src
CAMF Paper
"However centralized coordination risks capture"
"Quadratic funding adds a novel dimension"
src
QF Analysis
7
Social welfare in funding decisions
0.40
8
Effective funding allocation
0.40
9
Creating a coherent funding strategy
0.40
10
Enhancement of voting processes
0.40
11
Improved governance mechanisms
0.40
12
Enhancing builder retention
0.40
13
Automation of proposal classification
0.40
14
Practitioner-driven governance reform
0.00
Evidence 1
"Governance needs to be informed by those doing the work"
New priorities discovered in knowledge commons
These priorities were not raised by practitioners but emerged from academic research.
+
Smart contract governance automation
from evidence
+
Cross-chain treasury management
from evidence