I’ve been thinking on this solution and I really like the idea of active voters not getting passive voter’s rewards, but instead having those rewards never minted. I also appreciate the fact that this is a change with known code changes and can thus be implemented quicker.
Applying the 9 design considerations presented by @bjoernek (Assessing governance & voting enhancements - #13 by bjoernek), this is how I see this proposal compared to the system as it is:
Decentralized & Active - Improves - Keeps the incentives for active participation (albeit, reduces the incentives) and also reduces the rewards paid to non-active participants (and any growing VP). It does, however, improve decentralization by removing incentives to suppress votes.
Secure - Slight Improvement - Removes the security flaw of spamming the NNS to hide proposals that should receive attention
Efficient and Scalable - Increases - End user experience can be increased by the option to hide proposals that have not met the 3% threshold.
Purposeful - Increases - reduces the incentives to spam for both increased rewards and for advertisement
Simple and Accessible - Decreases - slightly complicates the UI and back end functionality.
I certainly welcome any feedback on this evaluation.
All in all, I would support this measure. I’ve been enjoying the 40% APR rewards recently and this would reduce that to closer to 20%, but it would also provide more price stability by reducing the inflation in half.