Who will be the ones in charge of the proposal vetting? That sounds like a centralization pitfall. Conviction voting is not balancing out in any way shape or form the quality of referenda either . Based on the Dfinity governance link, the proposer of the spam referenda was a large whale that was gaming the system. Other commenters like Mr Cole and members of governance outside this forum would attest the same.
The counter to this spam issue on token weighted rewards for votes, initially was to propose a weighted model, but soon it was realized that a simple centralized blacklist would do the job better.
This design doesn’t bode well with decentralization, in fact, it moves away from it. Hopefully people see that this is not just about fine tuning, rather as a need for a real game theory breakthrough in order to make it plausible and not to recreate all models sensitive to Sybil gaming and spam.
So we’ll just echo what @ wabkebab hinted at, the problem is not lack of incentives. Rather, the success of Polymarket and the theoretical merits of Futarchy seem to be better models for a more accurate and careful voting systems and patterns but that would go in the opposite direction as token voters would require to risk said tokens somehow. Stake them and possibly have them burn. That is the only way that a reward can happen according to recent experience and theoretical merits of Futarchy.
I think the unstaking time should be as-is and the unstaker shouldn’t be earning APY.
My arguments as strong as yours.
(Now that you mention it, I’d like those to be much longer, similar to vesting. That at least have some chance that people would vote like they have something at stake.)
While community participation should certainly be a central platform objective, adoption of DOT is another key objective. Conditions, such voting-based reward, adds obstacle for investors, and therefore, holds back adoption, reduces the value of DOT, and diminishes the needed resources to build the platform. The staking reward should be something that is predictable and not too complicated for newbies and investors (Also, while I sense great amount of hostility towards the whales, their investment strongly influences the value of DOT. *And we are still keen on institutional investors to get in on this community-based action).
To address the participation issue, instead of taking a ‘money’ approach, I think what is rather needed is improved access to information. Perhaps designated voting/discussion app or promotional activities geared towards encouraging participation, or improvements in forum/opengov design (I don’t have anything specific in mind).
I agree 100% with you on the staking reward clarity and the fact that polakdot DAO and platform are not user friendly at all.
I am also a bit hostile toward whales but just because current rules favour them too much. I still remember all the money that the treasury gaev to create DED (the failed meme token) on which we had zero control and that money now is simply gone. I don’t follow much the DAO but I remember the flop it was.
If you still get staking rewards during the unbonding period you’d just always stake and unstake immediatly after, devoiding the idea of the unbonding period to some extent. If the pool has a slower unstaking period for small amounts you could just divide your assets into a pool to circumvent the unbonding period. These ideas don’t follow.
If the unbonding period is a problem for you you should just mint liquid staked DOTs.
You are not getting my point, and actually promoting the opposite. I distrust politics, that’s why I am here in crypto, for PERMISSIONLESS TRANSACTING AND STORE OF VALUE. If I have to join a political camp, I will leave for another chain-economy with less or no politics, and less / no attention maintenance like staking+delegating.
The second really troubling direction you are going is starting to categorize and paint non-politcal/non-voting DOT-Holders as actually being system-gaming criminals.
This is really very very bad. If anyone holds DOT, that is supportive enough. And if these are also wise enough to be non/anti-political, than that’s even better. Politics and politicians and democracies will always grow into corruption.
Let’s have pure mathematical tokenomics and high quality blockchaincode do their wonderful work and decide for themselves. “Lack of Political Culture” is wonderful, and “Every Voice” should definitely NOT BE HEARED.