One of the pitfalls of any gamified system is when it's gamified on the wrong criteria. The current reward function seems to be very much oriented towards: picking one idea, and sticking with building it all the way through. It's much easier to say, player A made more progress than player B when they clearly demonstrated much more output - but what if that progress was towards an idea that did not have PMF?
In the past 2 weekly votings that I've done, I feel that many very early startups are trying to build, build, build, without really truly understanding the problem they're solving, and that their solution is the right solution for it.
My background is as an engineer, so I might be biased, but I almost always find the building part the easiest part of solving any given problem, as long as the problem is very well-defined, and solution is well-proven.
One proposal I have is that there should be more specific voting criteria, and categorizations of startups based on pre-PMF and post-PMF (though these definitions are handwavey, we could let people self-identify). We shouldn't try to compare the actions of a company without PMF with one with PMF!
For companies pre-PMF, we should attempt to vote on "which company made more progress towards specifying or proving their value prop," and for post-PMF, we can vote on "which company made more progress towards growth."
*growth - where the goal of a startup is specifically hyper growth, as opposed to just sustaining itself.
I'd love to know what the rest of the pioneer community thinks. Does pioneer scoring overoptimize for building, and reward the wrong behavior for pre-PMF startups?