... allocate it as best as we can. ...
How?
It would create a market competition for the BEST things to fund. If people don't like where the money is going they can bid better / more work for the same money.
you mean depend on the same crew who believed merger was the best thing for BitShares to decide/bid the fittest option for BitShares ?
Your idea always sounded good in a pure speculative sensation , but in reality , things doesn't work like that . "If X then Y" works in programming language because there is only fixed outcome and fixed condition , but in reality neither X or Y is fixed .
No . it would not create a market competition for the BEST things to fund because neither you or the crew know what is best to fund . Spending money and getting return is a rare ability , that kind of ability never belongs to most people .
VCs give money to hundreds of companies , only few of them would prevail . That's how hard it is to run a business , that's how hard it is to fund something and getting return .
To the most extent , competition for bids would create the solution with the best price for a specific task , but it wouldn't be good to the business if the task wasn't helping the business to begin with .
If you can't get bunch of people to help you run a successful company , you can't depend on a bunch of people who naive enough to believe "new features would boost the market cap" to spend dilution on "the best features" in order to boost the value of BitShares either .