Having reviewed the insightful feedback from fellow delegates, I’d like to share my perspective on how we can balance effective governance with broader participation and alignment within uniswap community.
I understand the concerns about potential collusion, conflicts of interest, and the concentration of delegate representation. If unchecked, these issues could lead to outcomes that harm the DAO’s integrity. However, imposing excessive restrictions might inadvertently hinder beneficial participation. We need to find a balance that promotes diversity and encourages new delegates from various backgrounds to contribute effectively.
While oversight is important, we also need to promote and support more participation. This brings me back to the Value-Aligned Approach—which I strongly support. But before determining what those values are, I believe we should first reflect on the role of a delegate. In my view, key responsibilities include:
-
Active Participation: Regularly voting on proposals and engaging in governance activities.
-
Staying Informed: Keeping abreast of the DAO’s developments and understanding the implications of proposals.
-
Supporting Initiatives: Being available to create or back meaningful initiatives that advance the DAO’s mission.
-
Providing Insightful Rationales: Offering thoughtful explanations for voting decisions, which help shape community sentiment and guide voters—especially during critical moments.
By focusing on these core responsibilities, we can align delegates’ actions with the long-term health and success of the DAO.
I agree with @eek637’s suggestion of implementing vesting for UNI tokens. Vesting aligns delegates’ financial stakes with the DAO’s long-term health, incentivizing sustained commitment and discouraging short-term opportunism.
Ensuring Separation of Interests:
In some DAOs, rules prevent service providers from applying for committee positions to ensure a clear separation of interests. Adopting similar guidelines could help mitigate conflicts of interest within our governance structures, fostering greater transparency and trust.
The central challenge is how to effectively measure the value of delegate contributions. I partially agree with @GFXlabs’ Delegate Rank model, which resembles systems like Coordinape. However, unlike Coordinape, GFXlabs’ model proposes anonymity, which could increase the risk of collusion behind the scene.
I believe transparency in ranking and reasoning is essential. Just as we publicly justify our votes, we should also be open about why we rank certain delegates highly. This openness can discourage collusion and promote accountability. If we opt to this delegate ranking model, I suggest it should be for distributing additional bonuses pool, while maintaining a lower fixed compensation based on straightforward, objective metrics.
Tracking On-Chain and Off-Chain Activities:
To gain a complete picture of delegate contributions, it’s crucial to track both on-chain and off-chain activities:
- On-Chain Metrics: Voting records, proposal submissions, and other blockchain-based actions. This is an area where us (Curia Lab) is actively working; tracking and analyzing on-chain governance data to provide insights and transparency.
- Off-Chain Metrics: Forum engagement, proposal feedback, and overall governance involvement. We are also exploring methods to effectively capture and analyze off-chain activities to help the DAOs we currently work with. By integrating both on-chain and off-chain data, we aim to offer a holistic view of delegate contributions.
By capturing these activities, we can develop a comprehensive understanding of each delegate’s impact. Importantly, all metrics should be fully transparent and traceable, allowing delegates to verify how their scores are calculated and address any discrepancies.
We can draw inspiration from existing frameworks, such as:
- Arbitrum’s upcoming Delegate incentive program v1.5: This model offers a detailed approach to evaluating delegate quality through proposal feedback and other contributions. It emphasizes comprehensive evaluation criteria that capture both quantitative and qualitative aspects of delegate performance.
Again, I believe we should establish clear, accessible criteria for evaluation:
- Objective Metrics: Maintain fixed compensation based on measurable activities like voting participation or impactful feedback frequency.
- Qualitative Assessments: bonuses based on the quality of contributions, evaluated through transparent processes.
This approach would ensures fairness while incentivizing delegates to go above and beyond in their roles.