There are many secrete deals in a company's bidding activities. I didn't call for bidding, and my friend used to do it.
企业的招投标是个非常隐秘的肥缺，我没有招过标，只投过标，我朋友招过标。
The traditional way is like this: Party A sends a request for bids and the requirements are written. Then there are a bunch of B to bid. They will describe what services and equipment are provided in the bids, and the warranties etc and then the price. Party A is not allowed to disclose the price to any of the other parties. However, in fact, most of the parties in Party B have relationships with party A. Although they do not disclose the specific prices of the party B's opponents, they will give some hints and then modify the bids secretly, which leads to unfair competition. What's more, the suppliers are all set. The so-called tendering is just a trick.
传统方式是这样的，甲方发招标书，什么需求都写好，然后有一堆乙方发投标书，投标书中写自己的提供什么服务和设备，多少保修时间等等，然后有一个重要内容就是价格，照规定甲方是不允许把价格透露给另一方的。但是事实上，大多数乙方在甲方那里都有些关系户的，关系户虽然不至于透露对手的具体价格，但多少会给些暗示，然后背地里修改标书，这就导致了不公平竞争。更有甚者，供应商都内定了，所谓招标，就走个形式而已。
I am thinking that it is not easy to guarantee fairness, protect privacy, and decentralize simultaneously.
我在想，这一块要保证公平公正，保护隐私，而且还去中心化，可不是容易的事情。
I consider if this is possible: Party A will publish the bidding document on the Internet, waiting for people to bid. Then each bidder sends their own bids other than the price to Party A. Party A needs all the people on their side to vote on various proposals. These voters have various backgrounds. Therefore, everyone has different voting weights. We can think of Party A as a community, and everybody in the community and each member of it has different voting weight according to their technical background. The result of this phase is that a certain number of supplies are selected by nearly all the staffs of Party A, such as five supplies.
我想可不可以这样，甲方把招标书在网上公开发布。等各路豪杰来应标。于是各路豪杰把自己的除了价格以外的标书发布给甲方。 甲方需要全部人员对各种方案进行投票，这些投票人有各种背景，于是每个人的投票权重也是不一样的，我们可以把甲方想象成一个社区，社区每个人的平时的技术展示决定其在这一阶段的投票权重。这一阶段的成果就是由甲方几乎全部人员公开选举出一定数量，比如五家乙方的投标。
In the next stage, the five supplies will determine their price and send the prices to an unchangeable block chain. They must carefully consider the prices and clearly describe the products and services they want to provide. This is a real game. Not the lowest price can get the contract. In Party A, the financial stakeholders and managers have a greater weight in voting. I think this is reasonable, but it also requires full members voting. After all, everyone has the right to know how much money their company or community will spend in the future. .
下一阶段就是由这五家对价格进行标注，然后发到不可更改的链上。他们必须对价格仔细斟酌，写清楚要提供的产品和服务和保质。这是一场真正的博弈。结果并不是价格越低越好。这个由甲方跟财务相关人员和管理层投票权重较大，我觉得这个是合理的，但是也需要全员投票，毕竟大家有权知道自己公司或社区未来要花多少钱。
There are multiple choices for party A. They can outsource all the contract to a single supply or split the job and send to multi supplies. In this way, if there is a supplier doesn't commit to the promise, party A can also let other supplies stay atop. For qualified Party B, they can still share a part of the contract for their effort to get the bidding. All are fair, open and all groups will be happy with the scheme.
投票有多重选择，可以把活全部包给一家做，也可以把活拆分给多家。这样万一有一家供应商中途耍赖，还可以让别家顶上。对于合格乙方来说，自己辛苦那么久，也可以分一杯羹。一切公平公正公开，群体各取所需。
