Hi @justmythoughts, all
as agreed previously please find below a draft assessment of this proposal against our design goals. Feedback on this assessment is very welcome!
- Decentralized & active: Slightly negative as voters will get the same governance rewards regardless of whether there are 10 or 1 governance proposals to be assessed.
- Secure & available: Neutral.
- Long-term thinking: Neutral.
- Efficient & scalable: Slightly positive. The removal of the spam incentive for skewing rewards makes voting more efficient.
- Reactive: Neutral.
- Purposeful:
- skew rewards - Positive. Removes the incentive to submit additional spam proposals.
- bad content - Neutral.
- Simple & accessible: Neutral.
Other questions/comments:
- As already brought up by you, how should we calibrate the splitting parameter (75%)? Under which circumstances (and driven by which criteria) should we change it over time?
- What happens on a day with no governance proposals? (apologies if this is already specified and I missed it)