[temp check] ENS Governance Distribution Program (v2.0)

[estmcmxci]

@jengajojo

I wonder if allocating more voting weight to any of the 139 delegates with disproportionately high power will actually help in combating voter apathy.

I believe that we should move towards a more egalitarian distribution of voting power. Thus, the focus should be on targeting and engaging the delegates who fall below the third quartile ( <667.92 voting power) — I myself belong to this rank.

For example, there are plenty of developers in the ecosystem (our unsung heroes, in fact) who have demonstrated valuable contributions to the ENS Protocol. In addition to the nine service providers selected for streams, Meta-Governance should take responsibility for identifying and distributing governance power to those individuals building on ENS.

@jengajojo

good points on defining the differences between comp, matching and delegation

Yes. We should continue the discussion regarding definitions here: Seeking Feedback on Bylaws GAP Analysis: A Call to Stewards, Delegates, and Contributors

—

@jengajojo

If the goal of this proposal is to distribute voting weight, this can be done purely as a delegation instead of vesting or any other forms of distribution to all parties including contributors, stewards or delegates. A rational actor will simply dump tokens upon unlocks as @SpikeWatanabe.eth accurately points out.

I have been thinking a lot about this recently and have concluded that instead of regulating the $ENS token, we should acknowledge it for what it is, ipso facto: both a currency and a measure of a delegate’s influence and voting power. It should serve as an incentive in both regards.

That’s why I believe @avsa’s solution is elegant; it was created with respect to this. Although I personally believe that delegates should primarily use their governance tokens for their intended purpose, I cannot deny the temptation to sell. I think that this is a feature, not a bug, and any ‘rational actor’ will understand the opportunity cost when they exchange their influence in governing the ENS Protocol for liquidity.

—

@jengajojo

In terms of concerte next steps, I suggest:

• identify delegates who are actually active in governance (eg: voted on atleast x% in past 6 months)
• filter to see how many of these are underrepresented, (eg:who have less voting weight than the average active delegate)
• create a list of top ‘x’ delegates who qualify along with the voting power to be distributed to these delegates
• Agree on a time period for this experiment (eg: receive delegation for 1 year) & delegate the tokens instead of granting, distributing, rewarding or compensating anyone
• Post a evaluation criteria along with ways to measure success of this experiment

Sure, I partially agree with this motion. If a solution hasn’t already been built for this, I suggest using Axiom to look up historical onchain data to filter out delegates based on your and others’ suggested criteria. However, I’d argue that tokens should be vested and delegated according to avsa.eth’s proposal.