Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for illustrating the impact of the VP multiplier with your own data — it’s helpful for us to understand how the current system affects delegates of varying sizes.
Regarding the suggestion of applying a positive VP multiplier (e.g., 1–1.2 as proposed by @jameskbh), we’d like to clarify that while this may seem like a straightforward solution, it would require a broader recalibration of the voting participation (VP) scoring. If we were to apply a multiplier above 1, the base VP scoring would need to be adjusted downward to avoid inflating scores across the board. For example, in order for a 1.2x multiplier to bring someone to a score of 60, the underlying VP score would need to be as low as 50. This could introduce new imbalances and complexities in the scoring mechanism.
That said, we do want to acknowledge that the approach suggested by James is actively under consideration. We’re evaluating different weighting models that could better balance fairness and incentivization for smaller delegates without introducing distortions into the scoring system.
Thanks again for your constructive input — it’s invaluable as we work toward improving the Delegate Incentive Program.