Hacker News Reader

I am not deep enough to critique the article, but I have comment:

"If the wealth equality assumption does not hold, QF is anything but optimal. Consider these two examples:

    Ten wealthy art patrons each contribute €1,000,000 to the local public art museum.
        Total Contributions: 10×€1,000,000=€10,000,000
        QF allocates:  (10×sqrt(1,000,000))2=€100,000,000
    Subsidy: €90,000,000

One hundred lower‑income individuals each contribute €100 to replace lead pipes in their neighborhood

    Total Contributions: 100×€100=€10,000
    QF allocates: (100×sqrt(100 ))2=€1,000,000
        Subsidy: €990,000.

Intuitively, this seems very wrong:[..]"

Intuitively, I thought: Well, the "hundred lower‑income individuals" got there money 99x, while the "Ten wealthy art patrons" only got 9x. (1/11 for having 1/10 participants). Isn't that working as intended?

Especially if you have a progressive income/wealth tax.

View on HN

Ten wealthy art patrons each contribute €1,000,000 to the local public art museum. Total Contributions: 10×€1,000,000=€10,000,000 QF allocates: (10×sqrt(1,000,000))²=€100,000,000 Subsidy: €90,000,000 Ten lower‑income individuals each contribute €100 to replace lead pipes in their neighborhood Total Contributions: 10×€100=€1,000 QF allocates: (10×sqrt(100))²=€10,000 Subsidy: €9,000.