I think so. The Phase 1 proposals were essentially decided by the 10 largest delegates.
Those 10 delegates may “represent” a large number of token holders but those 10 people are ~0.2% of the 5,000+ people that reviewed proposals and voted. I speculate that the majority of people that delegated their tokens went through the formality of choosing a delegate as quickly as possible to claim their tokens and that a significant majority of delegators will not be monitoring their delegates’ voting record. Many of these delegations are effectively a lifetime delegation, chosen on a whim, in order to claim an airdrop.
Here’s a few ideas for how we can mitigate the concentration of power that has been given in perpetuity:
-Cap delegates at a maximum number of delegated votes or a percent of total delegated votes.
-Allow the delegation to expire after a period, say 6 months, to remove from a delegates votes the delegators that are oblivious to governance. If the delegators are paying attention, they can re-delegate.
-Create term limits for delegators
What does everyone else think after this first batch of Phase 1 votes? Do you think this is a problem? If so, what ideas do you have for how else could we solve this?
I understand what you mean and you suggestion look interesting.
But I suggest rather than focusing on delegate power, focus should be on his/her/their decision. If you feel their voting is biased, you should bring it up and for that we have many medium, here and/or on discord.
I’m not suggesting that anyone’s votes are biased at all or that anyone is doing anything wrong. I presume there are good intentions all around. What I’m suggesting is that only 10 delegates are essentially driving the votes and I am questioning whether that is sufficiently democratic. I think that’s too much power to be concentrated in so few hands.
Yeah, i would agree with that. However if the structural risk exists, even if everyone now is solid, at some point in the future this could be a problem so might as well put a guardrail up against that now while we are building.
That is a serious mind boggling thought and I have been thinking about this from from few days too and let me extend your comment with this, there are few delegates here on OP gov who are delegate on other DAOs too, when I look at this from an outsider perspective, this all seems like a DAO but controlled by very few people and I am not just talking about OP gov, I am talking in general and I dont know how to feel about this.
When you are a public figure in a DAO, from psychology side, I would assume they can be biased towards a proposal/idea because of their connection to other DAOs where they are delegate too because they might be afraid that going against the said proposal/idea might impact their public image and/or their connection with other DAOs.
This is not directly connected towards what you said, but in long run, I do see this as a problem.
I agree, I have already re-delegate to myself at the moment at voting for each proposal. Even if it required more time I think smaller entities voting will reduce biases and centralization!