Fair points! If the seat assignment idea were implemented it would have to be done in a minimalistic way for the reasons @alberreman mentioned (we don’t want it disrupting an otherwise enjoyable experience).
ETHDenver already has a two-tier seat assignment system. The very front section is reserved for speakers, sponsors, and other VIPs. All the other seats are open to the rest of attendees. If we/they implemented a Harberger seat experiment, it would probably make sense to open up a small third-tier section between the VIPs and the open seating. Then the experiment would be limited to only that section.
Booths are a great idea. One key feature to keep in mind with regard to constructing a Harberger experiment is Harberger taxes rely on a perpetual auction mechanism. Which means whatever property is being auctioned off potentially needs to be turned over to multiple “owners.”
Booths are normally provided to ETHGlobal sponsors. Sponsors travel to these events with swag, displays, and multiple team members (high costs). To have them then casually compete for booth space after they arrive might be disruptive in a similar way to if all attendees’ seats were Harberger-ed. Plus it would come with the added complication that the only reason ETHGlobal events are free to the community is because of the sponsors. Experimenting with money source for the event before the mechanism is established as a proven model would introduce a reasonable about of risk.
I do like this idea, though, because it introduces to the conversation the fact that sponsors are another group that could participate in these experiments. Maybe there could be some kind of electronic display (billboard) that sponsors (or whoever) could buy and bid on throughout the course of the weekend? Something that even projects who aren’t in attendence could participate in (they could bid remotely).