I think a better approach instead of voting on features is:
- Have lots of people declare that they're tired of all the crapcoins and they're going to support an actual innovative coin.
- Solicit proposals for new coins over a two week period. This allows devs to have new features beyond those already known.
- After the two weeks are over, people get one week to vote for the proposal they like best. Limit voters to those with accounts of a certain age and activity to avoid fraud.
- Everyone agrees to support the winning coin even if they voted for a different proposal.
- Give the developer a month or so to actually develop the coin.
- Launch, profit, etc.
Oh, and a strict no-existing-coins rule for the proposals. Otherwise you'll end up with "camps" from existing coins arguing why theirs is the best.
- Have lots of people declare that they're tired of all the crapcoins and they're going to support an actual innovative coin.
- Solicit proposals for new coins over a two week period. This allows devs to have new features beyond those already known.
- After the two weeks are over, people get one week to vote for the proposal they like best. Limit voters to those with accounts of a certain age and activity to avoid fraud.
- Everyone agrees to support the winning coin even if they voted for a different proposal.
- Give the developer a month or so to actually develop the coin.
- Launch, profit, etc.
Oh, and a strict no-existing-coins rule for the proposals. Otherwise you'll end up with "camps" from existing coins arguing why theirs is the best.
I feel like while this is a good alternative, it would be impossible to implement. Forcing people to support something on the internet isn't exactly easy to do.
By the amount of coins flooding the market it would appear that the barrier to producing a coin is low enough that with a good proposal there's no real need to jump through all of these self-imposed hoops.
