In my opinion the problem is not, if some projects are “worth” more than others, but that there are projects with fewer users than the more popular/older projects. As we do not know which discovery might bring the most benefits to human mankind in the future, I am convinced that we shall maintain the liberty to choose the projects to the personal liking/motivation of each of us.
But I do suggest that GRIDCOIN does not distribute the coins evenly between each whitelisted project. I propose that GRIDCOIN distributes the coins according to the active user-base of every project each superblock. This might be done in two ways:
- We might create three categories and weight them as follows:
The first-third of the most popular projects (most users) gets one third more coins than the second-third, which gets the same amount of coins as an equal distribution between the projects. The least popular projects (last-third) gets one-third less coins allocated. (At the moment is is roughly 1 – 1500 users last-third, between 1500 – 3000 users middle-third, 3000 – 4500 users first third)
Or - We count the exact numbers of active users for each project and distribute the coins evenly for each active user over the projects. We might normalize these numbers over x-numbers of superblocks.
I am pretty sure; each solution can be implemented by the devs.
I see a great advantage of such a solution: Each project has to compete for computer power by convincing each user that their research brings the greatest benefit to humanity or solves the greatest mystery of the world, without debating and voting endlessly about subjective values we might never agree on.