Could be wrong here, but airdrops for delegation or voting seem like transparently the wrong sort of incentives to get the behavior weād want to see.
Why? The majority of users will do the exact minimum to secure the bag.
What do we get?
For delegation: more day-one delegation without regard for actual affinity or alignment and zero follow-up. We end up right back where we were, with the massive distortions in distribution.
For āparticipationā: spam
(Iād guess that a lot of the spam participation to date has been in anticipation of such an airdrop.)
For voting: a ton of noise in vote outcomes, again because people will do the minimum: vote (YEA, probably) without reading the proposal
Itās not simple participation you want to incentivize ā itās quality participation by a broad, informed citizenry. Incentivization of some sort is probably in order, but achieving that sort of participation is probably more of a slow grind, facilitated by structural changes (in the vein of what @raho proposes here) and, of course, effectively demonstrating that participation in governance is worth it.
You canāt invoke that Munger quote without actually thinking about where your incentives will lead.