This incentivization trial aims to encourage as many quality delegates to get involved in the DAO as possible. I support renewing the delegate incentivization trial and resetting the minimum participation metrics each 6 month cycle to provide a window for new entrants. As long as the new delegates meet the minimum delegated vote threshold they should be given the opportunity to be compensated for their time and effort. Since governance is more effective with ongoing participation, I believe there should still be a minimum voting and communication metric.
I also agree that older delegates should be compensated more because we should strive to keep our delegates involved in the DAO for the long term as governance participation becomes more effective throughout time. I like the option of using a multiplier for older delegate compensation but agree that it shouldn’t be too high to avoid large gaps of inequality.
I voted YES for now as we should renew and the general direction is fine.
But I also don’t really get the point of the multiplier. Mind you it’s in my interest to have a multiplier as I have been here since the start but not sure that this is fair to newcomers. And we should strive to make governance attractive to newcomers!
@lefterisjp I think the argument in favor of the multiplier is that longer-standing delegates have more context and would therefore be more valuable to the DAO. That said, I think it might go too far to say they’re up to 150% more valuable.
@fourpoops I don’t mind either way but given the argument above it would follow to count the first trial period meaning delegates who voted at all during the initial trial period will have 1.1 for this period’s reporting.
What do you think a good multiplier / formula would be? I know the 1.5 cap came from my post as the first to throw it out there. My thoughts on the multiplier is that its a nice bonus to incentivize people to stay around and stay active, but curious to see other’s thoughts. In the context of the program, it would have hypothetically inflated that first 6-month by at most 42,500 (in a scenario where everyone was 1.5 x 85,129.21).
The adjusted leniency in definition of participation should somewhat balance centralization fears out as it would be way more forgiving for new members. Of course, lead a horse to water applies here…
The one nice thing is if this passes the highest anyone would be is at 1.1 the next period. So if as the discussion matures consensus is that the cap should maybe only be 1.25 or something, we have runway to amend the formula at that time. I just wanted to ask, since with that in mind while it’s late to have in terms of this HIP vote, it’s not too late in the grand scheme of things.
Only 50% more, which sounds reasonable to me. 150% would definitely be too much of a premium. What’s nice about having to renew this every 6 months is that we have a bit of time to assess how the multiplier is even working before we get to the max. (edit: seeing that’s exactly what @Bob-Rossi just said too)
the participation threshold discourages involvement.
the participation multiplier encourages continuous involvement.
rewarding long-standing delegates for continuous involvement seems extremely reasonable.
a multiplier is an effective tool for such a reward, and the current 1.5 multiplier (a) seems more than fair and (b) will apply to new delegates who continue to participate just as it will apply to delegates who have participated for almost a year.