I generally support having these types of documents to provide clarity for delegates and the community at large. I understand that enforcement is beyond the scope of this post, however, I would like to urge the authors to restrict further developments about enforcement in a way which minimizes admin overhead. Two concrete ways to do this is to divide the enforcement into two categories:
a. Enforcement via the free market for delegation: This should include ‘must’/‘should’ statements which delegates must follow and do not need admins to calculate or debate over if a delegate is abiding by them or not.
b. Enforcement by platform admins: This should include abusive language or imagery and general behaviour which can be constituted as ‘spam’. Admins of such communication channels such as telegram, discord, discourse should be given the authority to remove such posts and in sever cases delegates who demonstrate such behaviour.
I’d also advice thinking about consequence such as temporary or permanent bans from communication channels for repeated or sever violations.
Further, the authors can consider the following points:
- Delegates should commit to continuous learning about the protocol, its developments, and the wider blockchain ecosystem. They should stay up to date on relevant technological, legal, and economic trends that could impact governance decisions.
- Delegates should prioritize the long-term sustainability of the protocol over short-term gains.
- Delegates should aim to work collaboratively with other delegates, even when disagreeing on specific issues.
I also support inclusion of these points: