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.