Due to the forum’s character limit, we’ll continue the Final Thoughts here:
Greater Redistribution and Diversification of Budgets
While in Season 6, 79% of the Token House budget was concentrated in the Grants Council, in Season 7 spending was diversified across new councils (M&M, Security Council, DAB). This marks a shift toward a more specialized design, and maybe less centralized in a single body.
Continuing the Path of Transparency (and Standardized Reporting)
Season 7 set a precedent by publishing the Security Council’s budget for the first time, a step toward greater transparency and comparability across seasons. Season 8 is building on this trajectory: the newly formed Budget Board now provides a structured process for governance budgets, while reports from Open Source Observer, such as the Season 7 Grants Council Impact Analysis or the latest Season 8: Budget Transparency Report, offer open benchmarks on outcomes like TVL growth. Together, these initiatives signal a move toward standardized reporting practices that make governance more transparent and accountable.
Forum: Toward More Organic Engagement
While voting levels were maintained, qualitative engagement declined: rationales fell by 22% and forum feedback by 25% compared to S6. This reinforces the idea that voting power is increasingly concentrated and exercised in a more passive way, with fewer justifications and less public deliberation. One possible lecture that the data suggests is an opportunity to raise the standard of participation, making constructive forum engagement a regular part of governance. With the CFC dissolved during Season 8, the call might now be for delegates to engage more organically, sharing feedback and reasoning in the forum to keep deliberation strong.
Season 8 is already showing signs that this pattern will continue, as optimistic approvals keep governance moving in the direction of simplicity and minimalism.
The Weight of Mid-Tiers as Stabilizers
The analysis by voting power shows that delegates in the 250k–1.5M tier are the most consistent participants (75–86% of the tier, averaging 13–17 votes). They might not define outcomes on their own, but they provide legitimacy and stability to the process. In contrast, smaller delegates (<250k) show more erratic behavior, while delegates with more than 5M voting power do not always contribute with rationales or forum feedback ( but they are very consistent voters, though).