> The marginal cost — both psychological and financial — of supporting additional projects would drop to zero Great idea for redistributing existing funds and

> The marginal cost — both psychological and financial — of supporting additional projects would drop to zero Great idea for redistributing existing funds and preventing winner take all, but the bigger hurdle is increasing the overall funds (eg, getting more people to give a shit in the first place) I have a lot of experience with non profits and independent projects, and funding success is partly based on merit, but more frequently on how clear, consistent and obvious calls to action for funding are. At some point it stops being a problem you can fix with software. It's not like there's a mountain of funding that just needs to be unlocked. It's more about growing the funding in the first place, which when successfully done (in my experience) starts to look a lot like aggressive marketing, advertising, and tweaking of missions to appeal to whatever is hot/fundable at the time, similar to the VC industry. True story, and kind of an anecdote that money turns everything to shit eventually.