Addressing Voting Apathy in Optimism Governance

Delegates 🏛 Delegate Updates
1

Hey everyone,

I’ve been taking some time to dig into participation in Optimism governance, and I wanted to share what I found. Active participation is essential for us to realize Optimism’s vision, but from my observations, there’s a noticeable issue: low engagement among many delegates and token holders.

Here’s what I discovered and a few ideas I think we should explore to address this. I’d love to hear your feedback and thoughts!

Findings:

After reviewing delegate activity and overall voting participation, here are the key patterns I noticed:

  1. Delegate Engagement:

    • Optimism has over 900+ registered delegates, but participation varies widely.
    • Among the top 100 delegates, here’s what I found:
    • 40 delegates (40%) show 0% participation—they haven’t voted on any proposals.
    • 11 delegates (11%) show low participation (10–30%), voting only occasionally.
    • 7 delegates (7%) are moderately active (40–70%), contributing somewhat regularly.
    • 15 delegates (15%) are highly active (80–90%), showing consistent engagement.
    • 27 delegates (27%) demonstrate 100% participation, actively voting on all proposals.

You can dive further into this by checking out More delegates

  1. Inactive or Retired Delegates:

I also noticed several delegates who seem to have stopped participating altogether. These delegates still hold profiles, but they’re no longer voting, which misrepresents the interests of OP holders who delegated to them.

  1. General Voting Apathy:

A lot of OP token holders, even those who delegate their votes, don’t seem to monitor their delegate’s performance or engage in governance. Many also choose not to vote directly, leaving important decisions to a smaller group of active participants. This lack of engagement lowers voter turnout and weakens governance outcomes.

The Issue:

From what I’ve gathered, this low participation has three major impacts:
1. Misrepresentation: Inactive delegates fail to reflect the broader Optimism community’s interests.
2. Governance Inefficiency: Lower participation slows decision-making and weakens governance legitimacy.
3. Missed Opportunities: Apathy prevents Optimism from reaching its full potential in innovation and execution.

Proposed Solutions:

To tackle these challenges, here are some ideas I’d like us to discuss:

  1. Minimum Activity Standards for Delegates:

    • We could set a baseline for participation—maybe voting in at least 50% of governance cycles within 3-4 months.
    • Delegates who don’t meet this could lose their delegate status or be marked inactive.

  2. Clear Designation for Retired or Inactive Delegates:

    • Delegates who are no longer active could update their profiles to reflect their status.
    • These delegates could either:
    • Reassign their voting power to an active delegate, or
    • Close their delegate profile entirely.
    • This would help ensure token holders aren’t delegating to inactive representatives.

  3. Notifications for Inactive Delegates:

    • OP holders could get notified if their delegate becomes inactive or retires.
    • We could also provide tools to make it easier for them to reassign their votes to someone more active.

  4. Transparency and Reporting:

    • Active delegates could submit periodic updates summarizing their activity and voting rationale.
    • We could also highlight the most active delegates so OP holders can make better delegation decisions.

  5. Community Education and Incentives:

    • We could create educational campaigns to help token holders understand why governance participation matters.
    • Maybe we could explore rewards for active participation, like reputation boosts or ecosystem recognition.

  6. Enforce Governance Standards:

    • Should we consider a community-enforced system to monitor activity across both the Token House and Citizen House?

Call to Action:

What do you think about these ideas? Should we set minimum standards for delegate activity? How can we address inactive or retired delegates? Are there better ways to encourage token holders and delegates to stay engaged?

I’d really love to hear your feedback, suggestions, and any other thoughts you have on this. Together, I believe we can make governance stronger and more representative of the entire Optimism community.

@Gonna.eth , @optimistic_emily , @Michael

7 Likes
2

Hey @Ugbuericsam ,

Thanks for the thread and for compiling a breakdown of delegate activity; it’s an important conversation! I agree that low engagement has a direct impact on the efficiency and legitimacy of Optimism governance. However, I think it’s crucial to address one of the core underlying issues: incentives.

The Role of Incentives in Governance

Active governance participation—whether it’s joining calls, contributing to forum discussions, or voting on proposals—requires time and effort. For many delegates, especially newer or smaller ones, the current structure doesn’t offer enough tangible motivation to prioritize these activities.

Key Questions:

  1. What incentives are there for new delegates to hop into governance calls, stay active in forum discussions, or ensure consistent voting? Right now, the incentive framework heavily favors the top 100 delegates, but even within this group, many lack engagement. What’s encouraging those outside this range to participate, grow their reputation, and stay involved?
  2. Is 4,000 OP enough? For top 100 delegates, 4,000 OP at the end of the season seems like a nice bonus, but it’s unlikely to offset the actual time and effort required for meaningful participation. Delegates outside the top 100, however, receive no direct compensation despite often being the ones striving to prove themselves. Should we explore a broader, more inclusive incentive system to support these “underdogs”?

Expanding Incentives:

Here are a few ideas that could complement your proposals:

  • Staggered Rewards: Introduce incentives that scale with activity rather than delegate size. For instance:
    • Forum contributions (e.g., active discussions, proposal suggestions) could earn recognition or small token rewards.
    • Delegates could receive rewards tied to their participation rate rather than their rank in voting power.
  • Milestone Bonuses: Offer additional OP rewards when delegates hit participation milestones (e.g., consistent attendance on calls, voting in 90%+ of cycles over a season).
  • Support for Non-Top 100 Delegates: Consider creating a fund to reward high-performing delegates who are outside the top 100 but actively contributing to the community.

Educating Token Holders:

Beyond incentivizing delegates, we also need to engage token holders. Many may not even realize they can reassign votes if their delegate is inactive. Educational efforts and notifications could be game-changing for governance participation.

2 Likes