Okay, other than DFINITY, who would you recommend following on IC OS elections proposals? How about Subnet Management proposals?
How do you think we get to that stage without incentivising members of the community to skill up on reviewing proposals while also increasing competition in that space?
It’s not that simple. We need both, i.e. the short-term / operational incentives to put the work in, and the long-term overarching incentive to protect the network and staked ICP. This is the same conversation that’s currently happening with respect to Node Providers (which, by the way, stemmed from proposal reviews which were funded by the Grants for Voting Neurons program).
In the future, when this space is more competitive, I fully expect that ‘putting the work in’ will not simply be enough to be successfully elected for such things. Neurons with a very large stake and who commit to publicly/verifiably reviewing proposals before they vote will probably (and necessarily) become a new, better benchmark.
We need to stimulate competition to get there though. In the meantime reviewers who consistently go above and beyond may even be offered opportunities to increase their stake in the network by those who appreciate their efforts and would like them to continue in the future. This sort of thing is already happening, thanks to @borovan and @Thyassa 
At the moment, everyone is rewarded for voting, but without the Grants for Voting Neurons initiative practically nobody would be reviewing proposals (despite what’s at stake). You need both the long-term incentives and the short-term incentives, or the system inevitably falls foul of: