Why aren’t DAO delegates paid a % of the funds they have delegated to them, and then delegation being reset yearly? 

Seems like it would align incentives, and prevent checked out delegates from sticking around.

(summer of) protocol {support | guild | fellowship} ☀️


Co-founder @bountycaster (bountycaster.xyz). Co-producer @ethereumfilm. Previously co-founder of Scalar Capital and product at Coinbase

Why is it unfair? And also, knowing you’d get paid may change people’s calculus when delegating?

Hm as someone who by default got a large amount of funds delegated to them in DAOs due to having some pre-existing distribution / name recognition, seems unfair?

Writing about how cultural narratives of technology shape what worlds we can build https://keikreutler.net 🗝️

Oh, great point! the votes themselves are the top of the iceberg of Serious Delegate Work™️, so public outputs like forum posts and private proofs of votes (to avoid not voting at all) seem like a great mix!

Agree but think this would need to be combined with private voting

They make up for it by getting sway in self grants

rehash

@dennison talked about this on /rehash recently, i think tally protocol solves this:

Building Tally.xyz.
Passionate about DAOs.

@dennison talked about this on /rehash recently, i think tally protocol solves this: https://pods.media/rehash/minihash-001-the-tally-protocol-wdennison-bertram

I have to echo Linda. I would love it as a large delegate but seems to be like a choice of "let's reward celebrities" just for being well known in the field.

Wouldn’t that encourage people not to delegate? If you are suggesting a % from those delegating rather than it being printed or from DAO treasury.

For the latter, this would likely turn into a yield farm or some sort. Delegates can also game it by giving a kickback for votes?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐀𝐎 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 ✧

We can do this with the @tallyxyz protocol!

daos

Today, we're announcing the next step forward in onchain governance: The Tally Protocol.

The Tally Protocol fully actualizes the value of the systems that token holders own and participate in.

Read & mint the full Tally Protocol litepaper ⬎

https://tally.mirror.xyz/Drw-uvqhUnJLRxg32sV-sqKZ785-AO85FBaCYeXqxhA

@tallyxyz would this be fairly trivial to implement with Tally Protocol?

@tallyxyz would this be fairly trivial to implement with Tally Protocol?

https://warpcast.com/tallyxyz/0x53bca255

Biggest concern for me is how this leads to paying for participation. Then the incentive is not to delegate to someone who will do a better job but to keep my tokens and do a half assed job participating to claim rewards

It is extremely hard to get token holders to delegate in the first place. If you reset, in reality, redelegation just won't happen. 

Slightly tangential, you might find this interesting:

It is extremely hard to get token holders to delegate in the first place. If you reset, in reality, redelegation just won't happen. 

Slightly tangential, you might find this interesting: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arb-staking-use-surplus-fees-to-align-governance/25084

who would be supposed to pay the delegates? The protocol itself? I don't see a point for the delegate to "align" with the DAO's interest, since the monetary incentive is not determined by how much you are supported by the protocol but by the delegators.

Whoa I really like this. 

One additional thought is: how to make sure this doesn't become an AUM game where people just try to amass AUM. But maybe that's okay? (or it's still arguably net positive for the DAO)

Would the fees be taken out of the delegators stake? If so it could deter some delegation since it would add a cost for the delegator. But could work if you found the right % that worked for both sides