I admit that I am new to Utopian-io. I just started reviewing suggestions and providing my own feedback and comments.

Problem: Suggestions made for Steemit are consistently terrible

One thing I have noticed is that most Steem (or Steemit) suggestions show very little understanding of how blockchains actually work. They don't know the difference between Steem protocol and Steemit features. I see suggestions to 'add features' to Steemit that would actually require a hard fork to the Steem blockchain. And then the features are approved by moderators and get paid $30 or more.
I do realize that the Suggestions category was created to put an end to rewarding these types of posts in the Ideas category. That does not mean that the Suggestions category should be where good ideas go to die. As it is, good ideas are buried under this steaming mountain of tripe and I suspect few developers bother to look through the suggestions for ideas because of the consistent low quality.

img source pixabay

Proposed Solution

The rules already state that suggestions must provide the details to be actually built.

Suggestions must provide all the details for the requested features to be actually built.
All suggestions regarding Steem and Steemit should explicitly state whether they are feature requests or protocol changes. Without meeting this basic requirement, how can you say that the suggestion provides the details to be actually built?
For the suggestions to be approved, they need to show an understanding of what execution would entail. This would improve the quality of suggestions that are being made. It would make suggestions much more likely to see follow-through.

Execution

Execution of the suggestion is very simple.
First amend the rules to require specific mention of whether it's a feature or a protocol change, as part of 'all the details for the requested features to be actually built.'

Second, require all moderators in Steem/Steemit section to follow the new rules in their approval process. Every moderator reviewing Steem/Steemit suggestions should read the white paper. The blue paper is much more technical, but a working knowledge of the white paper is a fundamental requirement to understand whether a Steem or Steemit suggestion has any quality. Finally, discuss a few hypothetical scenarios with moderators (and potential moderators) to ensure they have the basic knowledge. I'm assuming @elear has the working knowledge, and he probably knows some of the moderators are excellent. The moderators not known to have the knowledge can be reviewed.

Third, there should be a process for appealing an approval. If a third-party reviewer (like myself) thinks the Suggestion should not have been approved and is willing to open a discussion why in the comments on the Suggestion, there should be a way to summon more experienced moderators to review the Suggestion and remove the utopian-io upvote. That won't stop all the upvotes from the swarm that upvote everything in hopes of capturing curation rewards from the utopian-io upvote, but at least lousy suggestions will stop stretching thin utopian-io's limited voting power.

Drawbacks

Sometimes good ideas do actually come from people without a solid working knowledge, and those good ideas might be rejected. When that happens, the rejection notice can recommend reading the white paper and finding people to discuss it with. Turn the drawback into a strength. Somebody not willing to learn from their mistakes is not an asset to the community anyway, and definitely should not be paid for lousy work.
Some 'contributors' will quit the utopian-io community because their work is never approved anymore. They will call the survivors elitist and claim the community is impossible to break into. Instead of being judged on payment distribution (look how much utopian-io has paid out to contributors), the community will be judged on results (look at the quality contributions utopian-io has made to the open-source community, the incentives paid for great work, and the steady flow of REALLY GOOD IDEAS for developers to put time into).

Benefits

The caliber of suggestions and discussion in the Utopian-io community will improve as the weak hand fold and leave the community. The suggestions will become a place where developers will actually look for good ideas to work on. Developers can spend less time looking for an idea and more time making great things happen. Utopian-io can proudly point to their RESULTS to show their value, instead of only being able to point to the payments they have made.
Developers have been part of open source communities for decades now, and it is not for the pay. It's for the challenging work, for the quality of discussion, for the like-minded geniuses that they establish relationships with through open source projects. Paying for open source contributions might bring great thinkers in the door, but they won't stay if it's not full of bright people being rewarded for excellent work.

*img source pixabay

Conclusion

Developers don't need utopian-io to tolerate mediocre thinking and short-sighted suggestions just to get paid. That's what day jobs are for. Developers need Utopian-io to have the same quality of discourse and thinking they're used to in open source projects, so that Utopian-io can be bridge to leave the day job and have steady payment for being part of an open source community they love.
Improving the quality of content in Suggestions will contribute immensely toward helping utopian-io achieve its full potential.

Imagine! Instead of being judged on how much utopian-io has paid out, the community will be judged on results. Just look at the quality contributions utopian-io has made to the open-source community! Look at all the incentives paid for great work! Look at the steady flow of REALLY GOOD IDEAS for developers to put time into! I want to go there!

---

Posted on Utopian.io - Rewarding Open Source Contributors

---