Creating a place for delegates and gov participants to provide feedback on Season 6.
Please leave constructive feedback so we keep the signal to noise ratio high in here! All forum engagement is subject to the Forum Rules of Engagement
Creating a place for delegates and gov participants to provide feedback on Season 6.
Please leave constructive feedback so we keep the signal to noise ratio high in here! All forum engagement is subject to the Forum Rules of Engagement
It would be useful to include verifications for a user’s twitter, wallet address, etc., for users who are running for councils. A lot of people in their nominations link to their twitter/github/attestation score/etc. in order to provide some background or proof of expertise. However, there is currently no verification mechanism, so it’s trivial for an impersonator to get through.
In the short term, the foundation could just verify claims and release in discrepancies to the collective, but ideally there’s a long term solution not involving the foundation. For example, nominees have to provide signatures and post from any linked accounts that they are running in the election.
I want to provide feedback for the upcoming Governance RetroRewards in Season 6, as I believe the current system risks discouraging the very engagement we are trying to foster.
By only retroactively rewarding the Top 100 delegates (even when participation is as low as 71%), we risk ossifying the governance system and disincentivizing smaller delegates from continued participation. Some delegates outside the Top 100 outperform several Top 100 delegates in terms of voting activity, yet struggle to accumulate the voting power necessary to break into the top tier.
My guess is that these smaller delegates who vote consistently are often eager to participate more actively in governance beyond just voting but they are discouraged by the fact that others are rewarded for the same amount of work, while they will never receive any compensation for their contribution.
Instead of rewarding greater participation, this system entrenches power and voting inertia, which ultimately goes against our goal of encouraging active governance participation and fighting voter apathy.
Moreover, we often hear how Top Delegates feel overwhelmed and exhausted, yet leaving RetroRewards exclusive to them does not promote wider participation—it has the opposite effect.
In short, I think that continuing to reward only the Top 100 will discourage serious participants from staying engaged and will not fix the participation issues within our governance system. Broader rewards criteria (Top 200, Top 300 ? but with higher thresholds for voting activity : 85% ?) could be a first step to foster engagement.
Context :
It is also important to consider this feedback within the broader context. Over the years, it has become evident that the work of minority active delegates is not being supported. For instance:
To date, there has been no effective mechanism to promote delegate discoverability. Tools like Govscore, Curia gov dashboard, Op Passports, and the Dune “Underrated Delegates” Dashboard do exist, but they have never been utilized during important delegation events, such as airdrop rounds, Retro Funding distributions, or grants. New OP holders are never informed of delegates’ activity levels. (Seeing all these Ghost Delegates (delegates who have NEVER voted) gain voting power this week after Airdrop #5 is a huge L.
To date, There is also no effective redelegation mechanism.
It was clearly stated by the foundation that the voting activity of delegates (both Top 100 and beyond) was not considered within the scope of retroactive funding dedicated to governance. Yet, this mechanism could have been an opportunity to reward minority delegates and mitigate the ossification effect caused by limiting rewards to the Top 100 over many seasons.
RPGF is not intended to reward delegates for the duties they should already be fulfilling as part of their role—that’s what the delegate rewards are for.
In my opinion, the best approach for the next round would be to include more active delegates, not just the top 100.
For context, I’ve been a delegate for over a year, and in case you’re wondering, I’m outside the top 100 myself.
profile: