What part of the Tender process gets more open with this proposal?
From a quick glance the paper, I fail to see why one would use a blockchain and smart contracts here.
Some business relies on identifying opotubities tgat creat value, and then naturally converting some of that value into money for the creators. Other business like this, relies on identifying dumb money, extracting that to the creators and then running off before the explosion. It feels like there are honest blue eyed blockchain companies, but 95%+ seem to be the latter.
The problem with public contracts imho. is the mechanical decision making leading to selection of a bid that is not economical. The shortfall is then made up by the selected contractor via delays, changes and substandard delivery. An alternative scenario is collusion by contractors increasing the lowest bid. Unless transparency across the whole lifecycle of projects is increased and with it accountability for in-time and up-to-standards delivery not much will change.
I would love to see more systems of government/law use a github style system where you can plainly read, comment, and propose changes to documents. Maybe a combination of the two.
It sounds nice, but it'd probably end up with large corporations using their legal teams to make laws that favor them. Also, it'd exclude anyone who doesn't have time to review new legislation written in convoluted legalese.
>it'd probably end up with large corporations using their legal teams to make laws that favor them
In public, where they can be called on their bullshit - instead of in private meetings as happens now.
>Also, it'd exclude anyone who doesn't have time to review new legislation written
It'd mean that a dedicated and conscientious reader with time on their hands could submit the really egregious diffs to hacker news and get them shot down with prejudice that much quicker.
Potentially, but there'd probably be loopholes, like paying individuals to promote a corporation's viewpoint. Even if, hypothetically, there were a way to 100% stop corporations from influencing legislation, wealthy individuals could still probably profit from using lawyers to create complicated laws that end up making them even wealthier.
In theory that sounds good, in practice how do you avoid it becoming an unusable mess? This would basically be a repo with millions of potential contributors.
You could have it work like our current republic, where only elected officials can submit pull requests to the central legislation repo. If you really wanted you could have your elected official look over a pull request from you to them, but this would be rarer. Do you think this would be manageable?
I think we should at least attempt it instead of throwing our hands up. One good thing would be to get rid of giant bills like omnibus bills and make all legislative changes more atomic.
same way you do it with code. using a platform that allows others to see changes does not mean its open posting, nor does it mean every proposed changes gets merged.
except people have vested interest in not keeping it very open and potential contributors also have vested interests. I don't think 'blockchain' adds value here
