Hey @Fot63life2000val ,
First of all, obvious disclosure, I am among the top 100 delegates so my opinion will be biased.
However, even before I was a top 100 delegate I found this criteria to be fair, mostly due to the current distribution of voting power, which you can see on Curia’s dashboard: Delegate | Optimism Governance Dashboard by curiaLab.
The truth is, once we move away from the top ~40 of delegates voting power falls off sharply, so they are the ones that represent the vast majority of active voting supply. This is what this proposal is trying to address. Voter activation initiatives are active for new delegates, like @Michael 's GovNFTs GovNFT Incentives Final Results can still run in parallel to retro rewards . This, combined with pariticpation in other councils and retrofunding, seem to be the current preferred ways for new delegate onboarding.
Looking at the curia dashboard , I’m also seeing for myself a lot of voter apathy that has been discussed on another thread. .
I’m including it here because I feel the two topics are connected, and perhaps future participation rewards should find a way to reward long-term engagement, especially considering how difficult it seems to be to make large re-delegation efforts from top delegates (see for example one of the top 10 delegates , who has resigned for a long time now but still holds 3% of voting supply and 8% of delegators).
I’ll spend more time reading into the current collective rewards framework, and how we can align this with future intents, but I felt it was worth clarifying both points.