I hope it’s ok to leave a response being a non-expert and just an average algo user.
These are clear and well thought through proposals which are an interesting idea for discussion.
I am personally against the whole way governance is implemented at the moment, giving out 70m Algo to ask 33k people a couple of yes/no questions is costing over 2k Algo per voter, it would literally be cheaper to send someone to their homes to ask them in person.
Moreover giving rewards for voting means that a lot of people vote who don’t care about the answers or the future of the chain, they’re just doing it for the rewards.
Imo there’s been a mixing of the concept of “finding the best people to ask about the future of the chain” and “offering incentives to participate”.
Imo it would be much better if governance were a voluntary program where people had to sign up, even pay a small fee, prove they are human, jump through some hoops etc, that way firstly you’d find the people who really actually care and secondly save a lot of money.
At the moment what is happening is:
The governance system is very generous so that sucks all the liquidity out of the ecosystem and stifles any project which can’t offer >10% rewards.
So now we’re applying band aids to try and stop that from happening and get the liquidity back to it’s proper use.
Imo it would be much better to admit governance is broken, take the rewards away and make it a program based on community service (which is the reason running a node carries no rewards and that works great) and then use the incentives in separate programs to build the ecosystem we really want.
I also really believe in free markets and I don’t like the whole vibe of “the Foundation verifies that list” etc because it’s creating a powerful centralised actor in what is meant to be a decentralised system.
So yeah IMO these proposals are just taking us further down the wrong road.