Imagine a system where people are rewarded based on their ability to provide value. The more effort, insight, talent and achievements you acquire, the more you should be rewarded — both financially and through social recognition. So, the higher you climb in any organisation shows the value you’ve provided and are able to provide. That is the core ideology of a meritocracy.

It’s such a “no duh” concept, we almost expect it to be happening everywhere and at every level, from small businesses to world governments. But is that really the case?

… However, the reality is not quite as smooth sailing as the movies make it out to be.

… We see similar issues in the DeFi space. When it comes to influencing crypto projects, one obstacle is that protocols don’t often even attempt to recognise merit, or to put it another way, they don’t even begin to think about how to recognise the value of an individual’s opinion. Most code simply grants every individual’s vote with equal weight, in a fully democratic, one-person-one-vote style. Or they increase the size of your vote based on the number of tokens you stake. This has a tendency of recognising wealth above all else. And, in turn, ensuring that future decisions are biased in favour of those that provide the most rewards to the — already — wealthiest members, which of course reduces meritocracy and opportunities for progression. Read More