Thanks @kaereste!
I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. The primary purpose of the anticapture commission is that it is a group of the highest context Token House delegates tasked with alerting the Citizens’ House when there is an imbalance among tokenholders in the Token House and/or a veto should be considered. (Report templates here.)
The Citizens are likely to be focused on what is occuring in the Citizens’ House or RetroPGF rounds and may not have as much time to focus on dynamics in the Token House (and will certainly not have as much context about the Token House.) The Token House, being plutocratic, is more prone to imbalances of power. Therefore, the Commission plays the very important role of making sure the Citizens’ House can be an effective veto.
In other words, the intent is not to create a voting block that overpowers other voters in the Token House, but for the commission to alert the Citizens’ House, which is the ultimate check on the Token House, when a veto should be considered. If the Commission were delegated 30M OP, the Commission itself could become an avenue for capture.
We considered 10M OP a reasonable amount of delegation to start with given the experimental nature of this structure, aligned with the experimental delegation programs we’ve run in the past. The intention is that the Commission votes on all votes, to ensure the voices of our highest impact individual/professional delegates remain represented as we welcome OP Chains and other stakeholders with large amounts of voting power.
Does that make sense?