@dnkta.eth thanks for the super clear and well-structured breakdown, really appreciate you pulling in examples from Arbitrum, Optimism, Obol, etc.
A couple of quick points from our side:
1. Minimum CTX Threshold
We should add one more question to the list: What is the minimum CTX that must be delegated to a keeper to be eligible for rewards? This feels like the cleanest “skin-in-the-game” filter and pairs perfectly with the on-chain data we’ll already have from Aragon.
Two sensible options we could take:
- a fixed token floor (easy to implement and understand), or
- a percentage-based floor (scales with supply).
Our recommendation: pick a simple fixed min CTX for the v1 pilot. This keeps onboarding friction low and leaves % models for later refinement.
2. 70/30 Split
We suggest we work with a 70% participation and 30% quality split.
On tooling, while tools like Karma are excellent for tracking quantitative metrics (voting attendance), they often struggle to measure the nuance of “quality” automatically. Also, not sure Karma can fully automate meaningful quality scoring yet (@SEEDGov could help confirm this as they used this tool well in Arbitrum), so a light human layer here feels safer than pure automation that could be gamed.
We propose that the 30% quality portion be determined by the Head of Governance (or a similar role) to ensure we aren’t just rewarding farming behavior, but actual value-add contributions.
3. Reward Cap
Completely agree — the per-keeper cap should be sized based on the total keeper reward pool we allocate. That keeps everything predictable and prevents any single keeper from draining the bucket.
4. Simple but Rigorous Framework
We propose: 70/30 split (with dnkta’s suggestion here) + minimum CTX delegated combination.
This is simple to track, hard to game, and still rewards real contribution.
5. Timing
Also fully aligned with dnkta here — perfect window to run the v1 pilot alongside the V2 migration / Aragon staking launch. Let’s use the momentum.