I see in all the feature requests posted that it contains a mix of small cosmetic improvements and rather profound fundamental structural changes.

I'm a web developer myself and it would make sense if the feature requests / roadmap items can be tagged by the clickup developers according to the structural impact they have.

You probably already are using another system internally in the developers team for that, but insight in how suggestions are labelled is helpful for users too.

Since it makes no sense giving a lot of time and attention to feature requests that will have to change anyway because of a more profound structural change of the Clickup platform.

As an example, the future ability that tasks become custom 'items' that can reference any and multiple projects or 'containers', will have radical effect on how lists will function, since they can become custom views altogether. Another example is the Automation and Workflows framework, which is not only a feature but can be the driving engine for many other features in the Clickup platform, therefore transforming into a much more configurable system.

75% of the feature requests I see are cosmetic and still placed on the roadmap while more fundamental improvement need to have more preference, since they will revamp the details anyway.

Having said this, I see also that the 'Canny' feedback system is very limited and maybe you should look into using Clickup itself for the same purpose, instead of Canny so it can benefit from its own development.

Summarizing: Give fundamental changes priority because they will revamp whole concepts anyway..it will save loads of time and effort.