Remove "Trending Delegates"

Hello everyone,

I would like to suggest the removal of the “Trending Delegates” selection from the Arbitrum DAO site. While this feature may seem useful for identifying popular and successful delegates, it can actually lead to centralization of power by suggesting to delegate to only a select few individuals.

Delegating to a diverse range of delegates is important for maintaining a decentralized network that is not controlled by a single entity. By promoting only the trending delegates, we are essentially telling users to delegate to the same set of people, thereby limiting the diversity and potentially leading to a concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Instead of relying on a small group of trending delegates, we should encourage users to explore different delegates. It could be based on performance (not an option as-of-now) or region or just have delegates write a small post which would be displayed on the website. This will not only help users make a more informed decision about who to delegate to, but also promote healthy competition among delegates.


The Trending Delegates section updates every time you refresh the page.

I believe it’s normal for a couple of Delegates to have a bigger delegation, since they’re known entities/DAOs and/or individuals, which generates trust.

I like the section because it incentivises people to delegate and to explore the different delegators, but I do still agree with you, that we should find a way to spread the delegation in the near future.


Seems to undermine the trustless nature of blockchain.


I don’t believe that. Everyone can choose not to delegate. By delegating you’re trusting your voting power on a Delegate and can always choose to keep that VP with them or for yourself, there’s no on-chain activity going on, so doesn’t really affect the nature of the blockchain imo

1 Like

Yes delegation is a choice, but concentrating voting power in a few Delegates contradicts blockchains decentralization principles.

Focusing on trending delegates can centralize power, making the network less secure.


What do you mean by “focusing on trending delegates”? As I said before, the section changes each time you refresh the page, so the ones you see now are not exactly the ones somebody else is seeing. Some might come up more often because well, they are trending.

And I think everyone agrees that the VP should be delegated amongst several delegates and not a few. It’s still early days though, and only around 11% of the tokens are in circulation atm.

The fact that the “Trending Delegates” section updates every time the page is refreshed does not address the concern about centralization of power. If the same few delegates continue to appear in the trending section, then users may still be incentivized to delegate to them, which could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few.

I just tried refreshing my page 10 times and out of 10 times, the results were:

  • TreasureDAO was shown 6 times
  • Litocoen was shown 5 times
  • Olimio.eth was shown 4 times
  • Bignoodle.eth was shown 4 times
  • 404 DAO was shown 2 times.

This raises the concern that the trending delegates section may not be promoting diversity and decentralization, but instead may be leading to a concentration of power in the hands of a few select delegates.

While it is true that some delegates may have a larger delegation due to being known entities or individuals, this does not necessarily mean that they are the best choice for every user. By promoting only the trending delegates, we are limiting the diversity of options available to users and potentially discouraging them from exploring other options.

While it is important to incentivize people to delegate and explore different delegators, this should not be done at the expense of promoting a diverse and decentralized network. Encouraging healthy competition among delegates can still be done without relying solely on the trending delegates section.

This was almost the same setup as Sample Voting Issue 1: with flipside and uniswap.

This raises the concern If users consistently choose to delegate to a trending delegate, it could reinforce their position as a trending delegate and lead to a never-ending cycle of trending. This could create a situation where a small group of delegates have a disproportionate amount of power within the network.Which would lead to a situation where only a few large delegates have a significant amount of power and influence in the network, while smaller delegates are marginalized and unable to make a meaningful impact.


Personally I agree with either getting rid of the trending section or altering the way that it works to make it more so fair, for example: Delegates could become trending based on activity within the forum instead of just activity related to people delegating tokens to them.

I really think this threat would potentially be better suited for the proposals section, so we could formulate a proposal related to the issue to vote on as a community


I like the idea, but not sure if it can be implemented, since Tally and this forum are two different platforms afaik

Just to clarify the “Trending Delegates” is being proposed to “Activity” base classification?

I believe it’s normal for a couple of Delegates to have a bigger delegation, since they’re known entities/DAOs and/or individuals, which generates trust.

Originally, the intention was to discuss and have it removed simply because, in my view, it created an unfair balance. However, if no one minds, I will repost and make a formal proposal tomorrow or something.

There have been no suggestion what should replace it or if it should just be deleted.

1 Like

Well, lets brainstorm. What do you guys think, should we remove or modify? I personally think maybe modifying how the section works might be better than fully removing it.

Does anyone have any ideas for modification to make it more fair? I think that in the very least delegates should be active within the forum to get trending.

I agree that we should decentralize how governance it done on this platform as much as possible to avoid putting too much power in the hands of a few.
I also agree in part with @yonathan. I believe that those delegates that have established a good reputation on the DAO should occasionally be recommended. I also believe that other delegates that are lesser known but are also making a positive contribution to the DAO should also be recommended as well.

yeah - there is extreme path dependence originating in who gets those initial votes. This was an enormous delegation event that won’t see its distribution move too much without a lot of effort. If you have the same people at the top of the page throughout, congrats those are the most pivotal people in governance for a long time.

it’s too early here to be recommending certain delegates. my suggestion is to tag delegates with interests or affiliations, which allows users to easily find those delegates most in alignment with their values.

1 Like

I think less than 10% of total supply is in circulation rn, so the current delegation distribution will definitely change imo

It’s possible. I see that people will be delegated to then a majority of them won’t participate or vote. It is paramount to who gets votes delegated. Me personally, I’d rather participate and earn through participation and through show of work.

That all depends how it is decided or if it is decided to distribute them as a participation incentive.

1 Like