Thank you for the proposal! Nice and useful metrics Paulo!
On a personal note: I came to DAOs after almost 20 years of teaching, seeing them as a way to live my democratic principles and, at least in theory, reward genuine effort.
I understand the frustration of smaller delegates who struggle to reach the threshold, as I went through the same process. At the same time, I see the perspective “We are expecting more than just a “yes/no” vote” as a fair arguement. Of course, I do not agree with excluding small delegates, since this leads in the lack of polyphony. Though, this is a shady part. We, the old small delegates, are not excluded, but the new threshold cuts all the potential new small delegates. I am still thinking on it. This tension is part of shaping a healthier DAO, but we have to be carefull, since there are more important things we have to do. Arbitrum is the biggest DAO. We have to understand it, respect it and try to retain this place!
Personally, I supported v1.7 because I dislike setbacks and I see it as a step forward. But for now, I will ABSTAIN, waiting to see how the system evolves, while still leaning towards my original opinion. This is not because I doubt for my opinion, but since this conflict has arise, I prefer to listen to everyone verry carefully at this moment.
My personal opinion is: a) Delegates should earn their compensation through real contribution (votings & 50 K bring eligibilty, extras bring compensation), and b) Seed should also recognize that incentives are a necessity in today’s economy.
Without delegates, the DAO cannot exist. And without a variety of voices, both small and large, we cannot call it decentralization.
I write the above with absolute respect for the team, I am glad to be a member of it, and I envision only the best for the DAO as well as for each of its members individually!