Incidentally, I’ve been thinking about DACs in the back of my mind for a while. I’m beginning to suspect the compensation for unfruitful decision cost is offset by a hidden cost that would render it less appealing than it might at first appear.

It’s a bit like TechDirt’s micro-consulting: http://sensorymetrics.com/2007/08/20/techdirt-the-blog-that-pays-for-micro-consulting/

You can no doubt make money from it, but I wonder if offering money to micro-consultants obtains less good punditry than if no money was involved at all, i.e. there was still a careful vetting process, but all responses were published for all to see. The moment money is offered, people start biasing their response toward what they feel will appeal to the client rather than what they would do if they were the client. Moreover, what kind of business advice can you obtain from people who need the money? No doubt many more subtle consequences.

I’m thinking there are also subtle consequences for DACs vs ACs.

As with any interchange between monetary commission and goodwill. Some people may prefer the brownie points obtained by sticking their neck out in support of a favoured cause vs easy pennies from failed projects in which they had little faith.

But hey. Nothing like the free market for naturally selecting the best characteristics. DACs may still win the day.