So you're saying futarchy is flawed because the metric measured will be gamed? How is it different from the present system, where legislative power has all the same incentives to only implement laws favouring the wealthy? IMO, futarchy is strictly not worse than the state of art. No one is claiming it's flawless.
> So you're saying futarchy is flawed because the metric measured will be gamed?
No. I'm saying that it is flawed because it introduced additional avenues for the influence of wealth to work (both “legitimately” and corruptly), makes the decisions for which decision-makers are accountable to the public less capable of being effectively overseen and evaluated by the electorate, because the kind of evaluation of policy it calls for is impossible (not merely impractical, though parts of it are that), that any revision to make it possible and practical adds a whole new set of problems (not least is likely to be a strong new incentives for ignoring long-term effects), and that it doesn't even begin to solve any actual, real problem.
> How is it different from the present system
That's kind of addressed above, but even if it wasn't, the idea of futarchy is it is better than the present system, not a layer of complication and indirection which retains the flaws of the present system.
