Thank you for the detailed proposal @skilesare ! I have the following initial comments
Process comment: As outlined in this recent post, we propose to structure the discussion around spam prevention (and voting enhancements in general) by assessing proposals against a set of pre-defined goals. This facilitates the discussion & benchmarking of the various proposals. → I suggest to conduct this assessment also for this proposal.
Clarification question on Action 1:
- We have currently approx 195mn active voting on governance proposal (out of 410mn total voting power) which corresponds to approx 48% active voters.
- If understand correctly, in your proposal the active votes will get 48% of daily reward pool regardless on how many governance proposals are submitted.
- For the non-active governance voters (passive holders) the reward would however depend on how many governance proposals will be submitted and voted on, correct? E.g. on a day with 10 governance proposals they will receive almost no rewards. Thus one could use governance proposals to a) “punish” passive holders and b) to lower the daily supply increase. I am not sure if spamers would have an interest in a) or b) but this is a side effect worth considering.