Hey, Lyn, I want to express my appreciation for this well-written post. Thank you for initiating this discussion!
Indeed, it is of utmost importance to introduce a feature that increases the participation threshold in governance. many community members fail to fully grasp the significance and necessity of engaging and expressing their thoughts, given that all changes are exclusively made through governance voting.
IMO, it would be sensible to consider implementing an entrance deposit for individuals / organizations aspiring to become delegates and receive delegations. this would serve as a safeguard in case a delegate acts against the network’s interests or disappears without notifying anyone. we could explore the possibility of implementing slashing or other deterrents to address hostile behavior by bad actors.
additionally, if major ecosystem projects like Stellaswap, Beamswap, Moonwell, Prime, and others become delegates, it raises the question of whether they could accumulate significant delegations and exert influence over voting outcomes, such as determining grant results.
regarding the delegation of voting rights, can any token holder delegate their vote, or maybe users can delegate only exclusively staked tokens??
If I’m not mistaken, in Cosmos, tokens can only be delegated to validators, and only those who stake Atom tokens can participate in governance. users who have revoked their stake are excluded from governance participation.
considering that collators possess greater technical knowledge, should delegates exclusively be collators, or is our main objective to allow any active network participant to become a delegate?
I believe that active influencers becoming delegates may lack a comprehensive understanding of the network’s intricacies and might vote without thorough research. their popularity and recognition could lead to them accumulating a substantial delegation threshold, potentially compromising the objectivity of the voting process.
It would be beneficial to contemplate measures to address situations where explicit conflicts of interest arise. for instance, several influential individuals might propose something that appears objective at first glance but is not, and by collaborating, they promote the proposal and use their majority votes to manipulate the outcome.
we should consider safeguards to prevent unintended consequences and maintain the integrity of the network.
IMO, delegates can provide explanations for their voting choices in the comments of specific proposals here on the forum. this approach would enhance objectivity and comprehension. additionally, duplicating these explanations on twitter would ensure that those who do not closely follow the forum can still be informed about the decisions made.