Can you clarify what “proportional to the voting power they actually cast that month” means? Is a delegate’s weighting the sum of their voting power for each vote they participated in?
How about a bonding curve rather than a hard cap? This would be simpler to compute and would also reduce the incentive to split one’s votes across multiple accounts.
As above, but more so - even with a bonding curve we should expect to see protocols and yield farmers automatically splitting votes across multiple accounts in order to maximise rewards, making the cap ineffective for any but naive users.
Shouldn’t this be weighted by the participation rate of the account they delegated to? Otherwise, 90% of the pool could be allocated to accounts who delegated to inactive addresses.
This would allow someone to seed one (or multiple) accounts with a single ENS token, then opportunistically top them up to whatever the current limit is in order to gain maximal benefit.
How about instead summing up each account’s delegated-vote-seconds (eg, the integral of their delegated vote totals over the last 180 days) and use that for weighting?
Clever!
With a cap of 1%, doesn’t this mean that over half of the tokens will go unallocated?
Doesn’t the lottery eliminate the 1 ENS minimum?
Are you volunteering to build this, inside your existing funding stream?