A really fascinating discussion @Kash. I shared a few ideas re delegated voted/ASR reform previously here in the forum so this particular topic is very much down my alley.
Some thoughts on both options:
On the Representative System (Option 1)
Pros: Having reps handle smaller proposals while keeping big decisions for full DAO votes makes total sense and would definitely help with voter fatigue.
Main concerns…
Preventing stake splitting: Anyone can create new wallets and spread their tokens around - how is the prevention of stake splitting actually enforceable in a decentralised system?
Equal voting power issue: Why should a rep with 10,000 delegated JUP have the same vote as one with 1,000,000? This seems to go against the whole point of stake-weighted governance. If someone’s willing to risk more capital, shouldn’t their voice carry more weight?
Vote direction / info problem: If a delegator can change their rep vote-by-vote, don’t they need to know how their rep plans to vote beforehand? Without that knowledge, this flexibility is meaningless. And whose to say a rep won’t change their vote in order to improve their chances of attracting stake so that they can maintain their Community Leader status?
On Opt-In Delegation (Option 2)
Privacy concern: Showing voting history publicly could be problematic. Votes should probably stay private between delegators and their reps to avoid social pressure and potential retaliation.
A few other questions
Rep compensation: worth repeating what @meow brought up in a recent JUP Rally call: how are representatives getting paid for all this extra work? The proposal mentions ASR for delegators but nothing for the reps themselves.
Monitoring reps: If delegators have to constantly watch whether their rep is voting to protect their ASR, what’s the point of delegation? At that point they might as well just vote themselves - it’s probably less work than rep monitoring. A default voting mechanism could help here.
Default voting mechanism: What happens if a rep misses a vote due to illness or other legitimate reasons? Should there be an automatic “abstain” or default option to ensure delegators still get their ASR? Otherwise the DAO is creating potential financial disputes between delegators and their reps.
Final thoughts
While I love this discussion and the fact that we’re trying new things, our goal here should be solving voter fatigue without breaking what makes DAO governance actually work.
Rather than picking one option, maybe we should look at hybrid approaches like:
- Keeping stake-weighted voting among reps
- Adding privacy protections for delegation
- Proper rep compensation
Anyway, those are my early thoughts. Would love to hear what others have to say in the coming days.
Btw isn’t it great to share and discuss all our ideas before a proposal is drafted?
It takes a bit of weight off the discussion and enables a free flow of ideas. 