Treasury Delegation Round 2 Ideas Thread

[justErik]

Great initiative @eek637!

Few things I agree with:

• Broad stakeholder participation: makes sense to include or even give a majority of this round’s share to developers/developer teams, possibly also researchers and grantees as suggested by @AbdullahUmar, who makes some good points on this.
• Expiring delegation is an interesting concept. But it wouldn’t make sense to let active voting power expire off a cliff. Could you trigger a countdown after x days of inactivity by which the delegation then after another month expires? I also thought of having a built-in slow bleed where vp is drained over time with inactivity and gets restored after certain activities. Not sure how difficult it would be to implement.
• 1m delegations to reach prop threshold also makes sense
• Seems very reasonable to me to allocate some to the 7 delegates mentioned by @Tane (great analysis, thank you!) - how much? Not sure. Another option instead of pushing 4 of the 7 delegates to 2.5m, you could also raise all to 1m and delegate the rest to those stakeholder groups we feel are underrepresented, be it developers or whoever?

@drllau_LexDAO

• if you want to measure outputs, you could look at metrics such as length of post relative to holdings so if you got millions of UNI and not being visible compared with delegate with just a few thousand … so rewarding posting activity / holdings would encourage more feedback
• however you also want the performance metric to be resilient to gaming … If some idiot starts throwing ChatGPT into the gov channels just to get more UNI, then quality of discourse suffers

I think gamifying forum activity is complex and, in reality, only a part of delegate governance. Length of post is, as you recognise, a poor metric as time and attention is precious and we want to encourage clear and concise discussion. Not sure about the posting activity / holdings thing either, to me it doesn’t seem reasonable

@drllau_LexDAO

Allow regulator to be “delegate”

I don’t see why we would delegate to an official regulator just for the sake of it. What would it aim to achieve? a goodwill bribe for looking the other way or providing legal advice? Imo better to invite established crypto legal teams then that are already contributing to related ecosystems and working towards the betterment of this industry, like Axis Advisory (no affiliation) for example.

@drllau_LexDAO

Tracking the performance of delegates and scorecard for delegations may be an automated process if suitable metrics are sought. Frankly, some of the proposals can be rather technical or complex so having some clue as to policy positions act as short-cut to digesting the details.

Could you build on something like https://www.karmahq.xyz/gov#for-daos to achieve this?

@drllau_LexDAO

Competency is measurable … And upskilling courses exist such as MBAs modules on asset allocation or duties of independent director/trustee. It may be that part of the understudy component is subsidised training for the role of full participation. It may be that unsuccessful seats go into a random draw for observer status so you build up a pool of institutional knowledge despite the lack of social trust or commitment.

At least theoretically, I find this quite interesting. Can you bother to elaborate? also, wen Uniswap apprenticeships?