Thanks for the reply! Requesting a slot is a good idea. I will explore how best to action that.
Regarding the sub points: I will expand inline. They were high level ideas based on our general observations in the space and the idea is to expand and develop them in conjunction with various leading orgs to push the needle forward.
3h. Delegate Accountability and Scoring
We have observed that there is a large gap when measuring Delegates activity. We also have the problem where we have high context DAO members who contribute who are not delegates.
How do we surface, adjust and reward accordingly?
Also given discussions:
- https://gov.uniswap.org/t/treasury-delegation-round-2-ideas-expiring-delegation/24676/14
- https://gov.optimism.io/t/top-20-of-delegates-consolidate-82-of-all-delegated-voting-power-is-that-concerning/5240
Given that the expected behaviour is that delegates report in a forum thread makes it very hard to synthesize voting activity and behaviours. Especially when they sit across multiple DAOs.
Our thinking here is to explore how this critical activity can be improved to bring it on-chain so we support the good actors and create robust systems for DAOs to make better data driven decisions.
We love @Curia and think they do an amazing job with their dashboards.
However this is static, how do we move towards building a dynamic delegate cohort that reflects and rewards good actors in a given system?
This also means tracking attendance in calls, on-chain to further contribute to these evaluations.
An extremely simplified example being, A member who participates in all votes, calls and discussions WITH positive feedback SHOULD naturally be ranked higher than members who do not.
We should be able to objectively achieve this.
** 3i. Streamlined Grants Program
This was another observation and experience that informed the development of https://github.com/0xLighthouse/signals
Currently it is extremely hard for the Grants and broader Initiatives to be allocated, so we have started building out a general purpose protocol that leverages gov tokens and game theory to help prioritise what gets funded/supported or addressed in a given community.
We think this is interesting because its a form of conviction voting that only places a users voting power at risk and the downside is their ability to not sell their tokens.
- GOV holders are diverse and not all may feel comfortable voting on expert topics
- They MAY feel inclined to participate in other activities.
I am not proposing to bin existing programs but advocating for more experimentation in how projects and initiatives can be evaluated in a decentralised manner.