Rewarding in governance, yes or no?

A few days ago this topic was on everyone’s lips. I found it interesting to gather different points of view and study a possible alternative, so if you are involved in Polkadot on-chain governance, this topic may interest you.

In this post I will refer to articles and opinions of users who I consider have made contributions of great value through comments.

Giotto de Filippi and Referendum 431 Personally, I was pleased to see movement on this issue. This proposal mobilized a large part of the community, managing to attract and present opinions for and against. These types of questions are necessary, it is the way we know the thoughts of users like Raul, Bill, Shawn and many more who have demonstrated their involvement in Polkadot by leaving highly valuable reasoned comments.

In some comments there was talk of alternatives with the Lottery pallet, in others the problems that giving monetary incentives could cause to polkadot, the proposed distribution problem based on the “Buffet model”… and finally the community rejected the proposal, but In my opinion this was simply the first step.

Jonas @GehrleinJonas: In his article published on PolkaVerse has done a great job of exposition and has given his opinion on several points:

  • The problem that can arise if we encourage participation in governance, mentioning that this can harm the quality of the votes.

screenshot jonas

  • The withdrawal of fees for voters, this can encourage the appearance of malicious actors.

  • The delegation of votes, a good tool that has allowed the formation of communities and users who acquire a “political” role since the decision-making power is delegated to them. And it promotes the opportunity for community members to have a say in governance through delegations such as the one Web3Fundation has encouraged with Decentralized Voices Program Still, there is a lack of a platform where users can apply as representatives and information about their history, objectives and thoughts can be attached.

As he mentions in the conclusion, Gov2 is an exciting world in which we must seek to encourage participation but seeking an increase in interest and involvement on the part of the voter so that we form a healthy ecosystem of thinking users.

It is a difficult path but if we want to be pioneers in technology and on-chain governance we cannot stop. Restoring a system similar to Gov1’s advice would be a step backwards for Polkadot. We are at a point of no return, we must experiment.

Initiatives emerged in Kusama in 2022 that sought to increase participation in governance, you surely remember Proof of Chaos. Did the numbers increase? Yes, but not the quality of the vote; in my opinion, users were not motivated to continue participating actively.


I want to bring to this forum a project that we have worked on for 1 year. Punkz, an NFT collection that uses nested NFT technology developed by the RMRK team. We originally developed the collection for a Hackathon organized by Encode Club but seeing the evolution of the ecosystem and the need for new solutions regarding this problem. Therefore we want to propose aVisual Reputation system.


On our website, You can register through our form. The requirements to receive a Punkz Pack are:

  • Have identity on chain
  • Vote in the initiation referendum of this project to verify your intention to participate in the visual reputation system

We also plan to voluntarily request an email so we can notify PUNKZ members about new campaigns, collaborations, and missions beneficial to the Polkadot community.

We see great potential in collaborating with validators and groups, wallets, content creators, parachains and users with disruptive ideas.

This system also applies to the ambassador program, a topic I would like to talk about here later.


The proposers, that is, those who submit their proposals to Governance will be able to prepare NFTs under the 24x24 pixel system that we will provide on our website. This file will be received by our team and converted into an equippable NFT that will be distributed among all participants in the vote (AYE, NAY and ABSTAIN votes). This will increase user participation in governance as achieved in Kusama and will allow voting and non-voting users to be distinguished in a very visual way.


In the future we would like to grant the ability to generate items to users that the community trusts to delegate their votes. These users will have the ability to distribute items among their delegators.


In addition to the items there will be a points system that will allow generating a Ranking:

Points will be obtained based on participation, comments, following and interaction.

Example 3 comment ranges: Basic, Developed and Complex. Well-argued and valuable comments will receive more points.

This system is not limited only to governance, the community will be able to propose “missions” and claim items based on the activities they carry out within the Polkadot ecosystem, for example interacting with dapps, protocols, parachains, wallets, attending events, meetups , participate in hackathons…

This entire project will be focused on 2 things; 1st create a visual reputation system that rewards the most active and involved users. 2n attract and encourage user participation in the blockchain and its on-chain governance.


We need active and knowledgeable users of the ecosystem, to do this we have to incentivize and reward the people who are interacting with the network or promoting Polkadot every day.

  • Lottery→ Implement a lottery system that rewards Punkz members with DOT randomly and periodically. Based on the number of times they have voted that month, they will have more or less possibilities.

  • Rewards → Reward users who are at the top of the ranking, marking ranges of 1-10 / 10 -100 / 101-500 / 501-1500 / 1501-3000 /
    3001 - 10000 / more than 10000

Punkz members’ points will be burned progressively if user activity decreases.

That’s all for now. I would like to hear your opinions. :arrow_down: :arrow_down: :arrow_down:

1 Like

No. We want people to make educated decisions, not to game the system.

You can, however, integrate your idea with prediction markets.


Completely agree. We must find a way to increase people’s ability to make informed decisions.

According to the study I did and read about other colleagues in the ecosystem, encouraging participation leads us to 2 points:

  • Penalize users who DO NOT vote.

  • Reward with a fair system (lottery or meritocratic)

But this is just my opinion. Do you think we should continue as before?

1 Like

Penalize users who DO NOT vote

This is also bad. Majority of the token holders are passive holder and that should be fine. Also think about tokens locked in DeFi protocols, you can’t really penalize those or otherwise killing DeFi activities.

Reward with a fair system (lottery or meritocratic)

Maybe. I am still doubtful but it sounds better.