@amiller, this is a fascinating idea! But is it suitable for Major Grants, of which we expect to be very few ongoing ones (initially: probably fewer than the number of MG committee members)?
Also, I think it will be very difficult to do the evaluation of success. Some parts do become easier, like checking whether concrete milestones were delivered. But how would people judge in retrospect whether a successfully-built website, or a successfully-organized workshop, or an improvement to a cryptographic protocol, were really “worthwhile”? The passage of time doesn’t necessarily make it easier, and it does involve the whims of changing public taste which are not the committee’s member “fault”. After all, we don’t have objective measures (dollar PnL and valuations) to go by.
Also:
the initial choice of “investments” may be better suited to individuals
Why? I’m concerned it would reduce the quality of the evaluation. In particular, it will make personal interests much more of an issue. Especially in our heavily interlinked ecosystem, and given that funding of MG recipients would be far greater than an MG committee’s retroactive-evaluation stake.
Lastly, as usual: if this is going to be a long discussion, let’s open a dedicated thread. 