Hi @cupojoseph, thanks for bringing this proposal forward. We really appreciate the effort to address this topic of governance participation, However, We have some concerns and suggestions:
First, regarding your statement:
While this might bring visibility to some active contributors, the impact on governance seems limited. As well mentioned earlier:
so delegating 200k ARB would not create a significant change in the broader landscape.
In this sense, it might be worth exploring a tiered incentive program that not only involves delegations but also other forms of recognition, such as milestone-based bonuses or rewards for specific contributions. This approach could better align with the DAO’s goals of decentralization and sustainable growth.
Also, we agree with the point raised in this comment:
Delegating without ownership can create risks, as delegates may lack a direct interest in the long-term success of the ecosystem. You might consider a hybrid approach: a mix of small direct rewards and temporary delegations, accompanied by clear performance metrics.
We think it’s crucial to better define what “retention” and “growth” mean in this context. Is the main goal to increase participation in votes? To foster new ideas? Or both? Establishing specific criteria, As mentioned by @jameskbh in their comment would help clarify the purpose of the proposal.
Finally, We find the idea of updating delegations every 6 months through on-chain voting cool to discuss, but it would be helpful to define what specific parameters or metrics would be used to evaluate contributors. These could include indicators such as their level of participation in discussions, the number of proposals submitted, or votes cast.
That would be all for now. Thanks again for sharing this!