The first DAO revolution is Vote-To-Earn.
Now it is time to do the second DAO revolution: Submit-To-Earn.
Idea is not cheap, as long as it is good enough. If you have a smart creative idea that you think it is good for ICP, then why don’t you submit a proposal for your idea when the proposal adoption can let you get some ICP?
Voting reward is only for your minimal participation, while proposal reward is really for your genius. Submitting proposals is the real participation in governance.
Submit-To-Earn could be another huge game after the NFT game.
More importantly, Submit-To-Earn makes everyone potentially a constitution draftsman.
The following proposal reward rule may be worthy of notice: Let everyone choose a whole number between -100 and 100, and then calculate the weighted average by
where V is the total voting power, and V(n) is the voting power acquired by the number n.
If you choose 100, it means you most strongly vote Yes; if you choose -100, it means you most strongly vote No; if you choose 0, it means you abstain.
The upper bound of adoption reward is 100 ICP, and the upper bound of rejection cost is also 100 ICP. That is, the rejection cost is completely up to the community depending on specific proposals.
In my opinion, the current Yes/No system is too brutal, and the suggested new voting rule allows people to reveal their full preferences more continuously.
(100 ICP is only my first recommendation, and this number can be determined by voting itself.)
As I always say, the voting rewards of governance proposals should not be different, or not too much different, from that of other types of proposals. It is not a long-term strategy to attract new investors. Indeed, the difference between governance proposals and non-governance proposals is the main cause for spam proposals.
In my view, the redistribution of voting rewards between ICP holders is both inefficient and unethical. If ICP is planning to go mainstream, this kind of redistribution should be totally abandoned. Voting rewards should be considered as a pure staking return, which should be attractive to a lot of new investors.
Governance participation should include both voting participation and submitting participation. I think the current voting participation rate is already not too low, and the next step is to encourage people to submit good proposals. Adoption Reward and Rejection Cost together are obviously such a good solution.
We have to evolve from the Vote-To-Earn game into the Submit-To-Earn game. Otherwise, we might be all fucked up in a zero-sum game.