I actually don't think it's complicated. IMO the future of onchain mechanism design is mostly going to fit in…

I actually don't think it's complicated. IMO the future of onchain mechanism design is mostly going to fit into one pattern: [something that looks like a prediction market] -> [something that looks like a capture-resistant, non-financialized preference-setting gadget] In other words: One layer that is maximally open and maximizes accountability (it's a market, anyone can buy and sell, if you make good decisions you win money if you make bad decisions you lose money) One layer that is decentralized and pluralistic, and that maximizes space for intrinsic motivation. This cannot be token-based, because token owners are not pluralistic, and anyone can buy in and get 51% of them. Votes here should be anonymous, ideally MACI'd to reduce risk of collusion. The prediction market is the correct way to do a "decentralized executive", because the most logical primitive for "accountability" in a permissionless concept is exactly that. Though sometimes you will want to keep it simple, and do a centralized executive at that layer instead: [replaceable centralized executive] -> [something that looks like a capture-resistant, non-financialized preference-setting gadget] Thinking in these two layers explicitly: (i) what is doing your execution, (ii) what is doing your preference-setting and is judging the executor(s), is best. https://firefly.social/post/x/2018205196568944653