I've been thinking a lot about preference falsification. This concept is really relevant when you look at tools designed for sending kudos that are tied to financial incentives. This setup is ripe for collusion, much like how people might claim to be Democrats in New York City to avoid losing business, even if they're actually Republicans.
What truly reflects our beliefs is where we put our money. This is why prediction markets are so appealing—people are unlikely to place bets on outcomes they don't genuinely believe in because there's money at stake. Similarly, if we tie financial rewards to impactful leadership, people are more likely to express their true preferences about which leaders will drive significant change.
Money is a powerful indicator of preference because it's costly. This matters because we need to accurately identify and empower leaders who can make a real impact. Tweets are cheap, but consistently donating to a leader shows genuine support.
By understanding where people are willing to spend their money, we get a better sense of the causes they truly care about and the leaders they genuinely believe in.