Hey @eek637- Thanks for bringing this up ahead of the end of the program!
TL;DR
- SeedGov supports the continuity and expansion of the program. Raising voices and giving VP to small delegates is crucial for the resilience of the DAO.
- We are open to finding a fair way to include unheard developers.
- Increasing the delegated amount to 20M will reduce the risk of proposals not reaching quorum and allow delegates to abstain when appropriate.
- Maintaining the 12-month timeframe with quarterly reporting will continue to yield positive outcomes for the program.
- Lowering the criteria for receiving foundation delegation from 2.5M to 250K will increase focus on underrepresented delegates.
Thoughts on the ongoing discussion:
1) Allocations:
a)
We acknowledge this risk and therefore suggest increasing the allocation to 20M lent UNI. This increase would not only widen the margin of error for proposals to be passed but also allow delegates the flexibility to abstain and not vote merely because they feel obligated to do so.
However,
If this is the case, we have a concern about this overshadowing new delegates. We believe it would be fair to prioritize new unrepresented delegates, both tech and non-tech.
b) Regarding first Round criteria: “Must have voted on 80% (or more) of proposals (minus the proposals that were canceled) over the last 3 months” - We recommend sticking with the 80% because it worked well in the first cycle and aligns with the percentage used for the delegate reward incentive.
c) Regarding first round application criteria: “Voting Power is less than 2.5 million UNI” - According to Jengajojo’s list, there are currently five delegates participating in the rewards cycle with less than 250,000 Voting Power (VP), which represents than 10% of the 2.5 million VP threshold if the same criteria were to be used. We suggest lowering the bar to a more realistic level of VP, which would better align with the current distribution of voting power.
d) How do we feel about being 2.5M currently the 6,27% of the quorum?
Alternative ideas are valuable, and we agree this approach could be viable. Additionally, we’re wondering if increasing the pool is feasible. It might be worth considering a shift in perspective - moving away from ‘2.5M to 4 delegates’ and instead focusing on the current situation: We have X delegates, and based on Y criteria, they will receive Z amount of lent UNI
Technical Representation:
- Implementing a developer quota would help support and encourage developer-focused delegates to participate. We think a more balanced approach could be more beneficial overall.
While the number of delegates with this characteristics is small, it’s still greater than the 4 or 5 delegates who would receive 2.5M UNI if we adhere to the original allocation. Also, the percentage split between technical and non-technical delegates could be determined after we know how many potential UNI recipients exist. If we set a quota beforehand, we might end up in a situation where developer delegates apply and receive UNI due to the quota, potentially leaving out other highly participative delegates without allocated UNI.
2 Expiring Delegation :
We believe setting expiration dates benefits the program. We think renewing the program for 12 months could still align with the original idea, as it has shown positive results in the first round. The concept of allowing renewal if delegates meet certain criteria also seems feasible and aligns with Kfk’s comment: ‘Longer periods would reduce campaigning overhead for re-election and other operational burdens for the DAO.’ Setting aside ideas that require developer resources, implementing a quarterly reporting requirement to maintain the participation rate could contribute to the program’s success.