8 · Deciding Together

🚧 Draft (core-idea sketch). Part A · Core Ideas.

The problem. Turn many people's conflicting preferences — plus the shared world-model — into collective decisions that resist capture by the wealthy or the well-organized. Pure preference-voting ignores facts; pure expert rule ignores values.

The core idea. Liquid-democracy quadratic voting over expenditure (a proxy for all policy, since policy flows through spending), with one decisive split:

• Facts are delegated to the truth machine (problem 7) — "to what degree does policy X advance goal Health?" is a market question.
• Preferences stay quadratic and personal — people vote on goals, then back policies structured around the market's estimates.

A Health-prioritizing voter can thus support high-level policy confident that its funded sub-policies are well-designed, and forecasting skill can weight the fact estimates. The natural first testbed is Dither governing itself: allocating contribution funding by QV, informed by the market's estimate of "which roadmap item most advances goal X."

Leans on: the truth machine (7), identity (1, QV needs distinct persons), money (6, expenditure). Enables: the system to fund and steer its own development (the self-reliant tenet).

⚠️ Where it's thin. The hard rule: never wire "allocate ∝ market estimate" mechanically — that recreates futarchy's flaw; the market must stay evidence feeding human judgment. And the liquid/quadratic delegation mechanics, credit issuance, and collusion resistance are currently a TLDR, not a design. Part B.