Proposal for a governance structure

I have created a mathematical model for a bank lending/borrowing system, and I have created a mathematical index model for a fund, and I can tell you that such a mathematical reward model is not effective. Example: an investor participates in governance with 50-100M, the rewards provided to the voting participants will exceed the value of the grants allocated to the ecosystem, what effect will this governance have on the ecosystem?
And there are several entities that in the future will participate in governance: investors, projects, DEVs, institutional investors, I don’t know now these entities will delegate tokens to current delegates, or will participate directly in voting but for sure in the future there will be more entities in governance.

So you are against this then? Introducing Governance Committees - #37 by Seyed

I would argue that this is a positive effect. Everything in life is just a trade of services and its very good to get the right feedback on your services, so you can improve them.

Ya maybe that turns out to be the best idea. Im just sharing my thoughts about something i think is suitable for this project.

I don’t think this is a full time job. A small part time job. We are writing now in the forum just because we like it.
Read this proposal Introducing Governance Committees - #37 by Seyed
In there they describe this exakt payment amount for the new committees, 4 groups with 5 members each 20k for each group for 3 month work. No one is complaining about this pay being too little.
How much do you think they should get paid?

[quote=“diligit, post:20, topic:2977”]
I don’t support this proposal, it just complicates the governance process, and has no benefit to the ecosystem, the main purpose of this proposal is to hire 20 people (promoters) the need is not there, and that devalues delegates. And another purpose is excessive rewards for governance participants, it will be time for delegates and other voting participants to be rewarded, probably after the retroPGF launch.
This governance structure for Token House is not necessary, and certainly no secretaries and bosses are needed.
[/quote] and Why does it devalue delegates? It’s about giving delegates higher value. I would say that this system values Builders highest and delegates right after. Delegates would be able to monetize their work by charging the delegators a fee for there’s work.
Im even suggesting a top list of delegates so delegators will be able to choose more easy.

1 Like

Who is Seyed?

But you said:

Exactly, that’s the value of delegates, they do the hard work of analysing and improving proposals, and if there will be “promoters”, the value of delegates is lost.

I don’t have any proposals regarding rewards, and I don’t want to assess the financial value of the delegates’ work. 20k and rewards at the end of the season is set now, it is possible that this amount will be reassessed after season 2, also delegates can make a proposal in this regard.

I like new ideas, but I also like the idea of contributing without set rewards, so any reward is a surprise.


Thats a voter/delegate should be able to work with this full time. A proposal promoter not.

The Delegates and committees are not necessary the same thing. Delegate vote for people that do not have time or care to vote themselves.
Committee’s are four groups with five members in each group. These groups are voted in by delegates and single voters to do research and state benefits and drawbacks with a proposal.

Contributing without set rewards means uncertainty. I would argue for the good of certainty.

1 Like