# Treasury Delegation Round 2 Ideas Thread **URL:** https://gov.uniswap.org/t/treasury-delegation-round-2-ideas-thread/24667 **Category:** Governance-Meta **Created:** [October 2, 2024, 1:59pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/treasury-delegation-round-2-ideas-thread/24667 "2024-10-02T13:59:04Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 16
### Author: ![kfx](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/kfx/32/6717_2.png) [@kfx](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/kfx) #### Post date: [October 6, 2024, 7:24am UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/treasury-delegation-round-2-ideas-thread/24667/16 "2024-10-06T07:24:03Z")
> [@eek637](#): > > _lowering ceiling for allocated votes_: when the original proposal passed, the threshold to post a governance proposal was 2.5m so the distribution algorithm was greedy based on that number. The threshold has dropped, so I’d suggest a corresponding drop in the max allocation per delegate (which also implies more delegates w/ non-zero voting power, which is probably +ev). Partially agree. I’m not sure if removing votes from the better performing delegates is the right thing to do. We have to be careful to ensure that the quorum is easily reachable for non-contentious votes. On the other hand, not having enough votes to post a proposal can be a source of friction. Since the threshold is now 1M, optimizing for that makes sense. Last time we had [a forum poll](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temperature-check-delegation-of-uni-to-active-but-underrepresented-delegates/22238/18) about the distribution options. The results were a close call: ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/uniswap1/original/2X/d/d78f2354bf638107fab311554267f45446ac539a.png) Specifically I voted for the second option (who ended up winning) because of the 2.5M threshold, so that at least a few of the competing delegates would get proposal posting rights. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/treasury-delegation-round-2-ideas-thread/24667)._