Thanks for posting an update on this @Tane
While selecting the top ‘x’ delegates based on scores is an improvement over simply electing the top ‘x’ delegates, this approach still raises some concerns:
-
The number ‘x’ seems to be LARPed without a clear rationale
-
Instead of setting a clear, pre-agreed standard for what makes a delegate “good enough,” this method ranks delegates and includes those who may not meet the desired quality. The threshold for inclusion is determined by the last delegate who makes the cut, which means the standard is flexible and potentially too low. By focusing on the top ‘x’ delegates “we can get” rather than the top delegates “we want,” we risk settling for less-than-ideal candidates. This approach doesn’t encourage us to aim higher or attract better delegates who might be out there.
-
Ranking creates a zero sum dynamic with winners and loosers which demotivates delegates who are highly motivated, skilled, and aligned with the DAO’s values.
Instead, why don’t we create two tiers of eligibility criteria and equally divide between delegates who simply fulfill the criteria in each tier instead of ranking them?