There are a lot of project creators who are working hard to create great projects and submit them for consideration of the SCF.
But there are very few voters on this board who are critically analyzing projects, asking tough questions, etc, In fact there's almost ZERO. It's almost like a ghost town. The people submitting projects probably out number the voters like 10 to 1, lol.
The problem is that the winners aren't going to be the best projects with the most merit. The winners will be the projects who can lobby the best for people to like their project. THIS IS A POOR WAY TO DECIDE FUNDING.
If the budget is $300,000 in lumens, a better way would be to create a panel of independent and unbiased judges who can critically analysis projects for merit, ask tough questions, etc.
I know we want to encourage community involvement, etc, but there's probably better ways to do it.
I've created a political party called Democracy 2.0: https://www.dem2.io We organize voting spooles where voters actually study the candidates in detail before voting. The theory is that an apathetic electorate leads to a corrupt democracy because it allows other interests to come before "we the people." The SCF is going to have the same corruption and problems because lobbyists are going to be key in winning the election and not merit.
For the next round of funding, we could create a voting spoole where voters study projects in detail and ask tough questions and are motivated instead of apathetic.