Thank you for the proposal.
Since this “war” continues, and I’m using the same word I use in my delegate thread, I will express myself very openly.
I believe that this entire issue is a clash of conflicting individuals or entities within the DAO. The only thing we have achieved so far is division. The numbers in this proposal show it clearly: Polarization!
I see the repeated argument that we are trying to reduce costs. However, the DAO gives (or gave) far larger amounts of money to teams or programs that in no way justify receiving such levels of funding. Either because they produce no revenue, or because they fail to produce the expected revenue. So why such hostility toward the delegates, who are supposed to be the foundation of the DAO?
The chart below was created using data I pulled today, December 10th, from Karmaq.
Below 500,000 total voting power sits 40% of the top 20 delegates, with only one delegate (5%) in the 200,000–500,000 range.
Therefore, this proposal at the moment is, in my opinion, punitive toward smaller delegates (<200000 tokens).
It would be perfectly reasonable to include a clause that delegates with less than 200,000 voting power count as (for example) two delegates collectively, even if more individuals qualify (as is the case now), and the amount that would normally correspond to two delegates could be distributed among them proportionally to their Karmaq score. Such an approach would increase the sense of equality within the ecosystem and make people feel that the time they invest actually matters.
Personally, although I am among those who will feel the consequences, I am not concerned. I will continue to be part of the community as much as I can.
But why do I disagree with what is happening?
If we add up all the tokens held by delegates with less than 200,000, it amounts to more than 3 million tokens and over 70 delegates. Yesterday, December 9th, I once again saw one of our most highly funded organizations, OpCo, request brainstorming ideas for increasing revenue, either from existing programs or new ones. Yet by cutting the incentive for so many people to participate actively, you reduce the chances that someone will bring you such an idea.
Yes…in the name of cost reduction…reduce the amount they receive, but don’t push them away by offering zero.
I say all of this with full respect.
Of course, my vote will be AGAINST, based on everything stated above.