Lots of great discussion here. Thanks @dnkta.eth for the writeup and to all who have contributed in the discussion so far. My thoughts on each section in the proposal:
- Weighting: I had been leaning toward 70/30 participation/quality, but I have to admit I’ve been swayed by @Mkatx5 suggestion to simply start with 100 participation along with V2 transition. And we can look towards a shift to 70/30 (or whatever percentage the majority supports) in a future cycle (for example when the staking reward cycle renews in May). This would allow time to align on definition of quality and how to administer.
- Quality: At first read, I like the sound of what Obol does. I fear introducing too many tiers/ranks/etc. may tend to overcomplicate and could create a situation where it turns into a competition to outdo each other (or worse yet “outlength” each other because more is better, right?
) instead of just being about genuine participation. I like the idea of a simple threshold – this would ensure engagement with proposals and not JUST showing up to vote. I also like the fact that they at least partially factor in delegated voting power. I certainly don’t want to discourage entry of new delegates, but if we believe that the community pays attention and delegates their voting power to those they see actively participating, then using that measure is also a good indicator of sustained governance quality. - Caps: I agree that the total keeper reward pool per period will be the more important number. Seems like the only time a keeper max would matter is if we have very low participation and a very small number of keepers end up being eligible for rewards. If we have the kind of participation we expect then I feel like the rewards will get distributed such that a per keeper limit is unlikely to even be hit. Not opposed to establishing one if there’s fear of low participation, but simply not expecting this to be a problem. Maybe something very simple like no keeper shall be rewarded more than 1/5 (or 1/8?) of the overall keeper reward pool for the period.
- Simplicity: 100% in agreement that we do our best to keep this simple and hard to game, and especially agree with avoiding incentivizing volume over substance. Prefer to pilot with a 100% participation (voting with rationale), but could also get behind a simple 70/30 (including some binary consideration of “sufficient” forum participation) to start.
- Timing: yes, supportive of piloting during V2. Though I do agree that staking rewards and keeper rewards are 2 different things and should be allocated separately, I think it may be good to align the periods so that we can consider extension of both on the same frequency. So if we start this pilot along with v2, I would suggest we run it until May 18th. And then on the timeframe we consider extension/adjustment of staking rewards we also consider extension/adjustment of keeper rewards.
Thanks all for the great discussion on this topic!!