The aim with going with a non-ranking approach is to agree on a baseline for the type of delegate we want. In order to get the delegates we want we need to agree on the minimum performance standard which can be set via quantiative metrics identified in this proposal as well as the delegate incentive proposal. Anyone who is able to cross that baseline should included into the cohorot. This encourages everyone to strive to meet these minimum requirements as opposed to competing with each other to be on a ranking list. Over time this baseline can be increased thus, increasing the caliber of delegates who participate in such programs.
The two tier model makes sense to me because we can create two baselines, higher and lower. Naturally more delegates will qualify for the latter than the prior and thus the larger cohort will receive less UNI per delegate as opposed to the cohort with stricter requirements.
This allows the DAO to
- maintain continuity between cohort transitions as was intended in the original proposal
- at the same time provide feedback on what is the general caliber of delegates we have across two tiers. This information can be used to tweak the parameters in the future in order to move towards the kind of delegates we want