We agree with the principle of distinguishing between voting activity and other forms of contribution when allocating rewards. This separation rightly acknowledges that governance participation goes beyond casting votes and includes broader ecosystem engagement. The peer-review structure for contributors also appears well thought out and not overly burdensome, which makes it a sensible mechanism for recognizing meaningful input without adding unnecessary operational friction.
That said, at the current compensation level for contributors, most active forum participants would likely withdraw over time.
In a scenario where delegation is vibrant, it is reasonable to expect that consistent, high-quality engagement across the forum and other venues would be properly recognized, leading to increased delegation and higher rewards within this proposed model. Indeed, players such as entropy have experienced measurable growth in voting power through that dynamic.
However, aside from these limited cases, it remains difficult for small- and mid-sized delegates to attract sufficient delegation. Under the current reward scale, many of these contributors would struggle to sustain their efforts long enough to reach a self-supporting level of delegation, and the DAO risks losing the participants who have added value at the community level.