Hi @skilesare, all,
please find below a draft assessment of this proposal against our design goals. Feedback on this assessment is very welcome!
Action 1. Convert from a system-based rewards model to a voter-based reward model.
- Decentralized & active: Neutral.
- Secure & available: Neutral.
- Long-term thinking: Neutral
- Efficient & scalable: Slightly positive. The removal of the spam incentive for skewing the rewards makes voting more efficient.
- Reactive: Neutral.
- Purposeful:
- Skew rewards: Positive by mitigating the ability to skew rewards for active voters via the submission of governance proposals.
- However, it is also negative as one could use governance proposals to a) “punish” passive holders and b) to lower the daily reward pool. For example, for a day with (usual) 50% participation on governance topics, 10 spam proposals would essentially half the daily reward pool.
- Simple & accessible: Slightly worse, as it makes the reward calculation more complex to understand.
Open points/comment: As also mentioned by @wpb above, why should it be possible (as a side effect) to influence the size of the reward pool by submitting spam proposals (e.g. even cutting it by half). I understand, this could be (at least currently) be a desired effect but this is orthogonal to spam prevention and a quite fundamental change to the overall tokenomics of the system.