TL;DR:
The new feature introduced by Mmurthy allows delegates with high voting power to endorse others with less voting power but significant contributions, aiming to democratize the voting process. DisruptionJoe's interest in starting Grantee evaluations is a positive step towards assessing grant impact, though concerns exist about potential misuse of the endorsement feature and fairness in evaluations.
What is this about?
The discussion continues to focus on the new feature introduced by Mmurthy, which enables delegates with substantial voting power to endorse others who, despite having less voting power, make significant contributions1. The endorsement process remains straightforward, requiring delegates to locate a delegate via a provided link and click the 'Endorse' button on their profile. All endorsements are stored onchain and utilize the Ethereum Attestation Service. In addition to this, DisruptionJoe has shown interest in commencing work on the Grantee evaluations2.
How is the community reacting?
The community's reaction to this new feature is still not explicitly mentioned in the summaries. However, the feature's design suggests a move towards a more inclusive and balanced distribution of voting power, which is likely to be well-received. The enthusiasm shown by DisruptionJoe towards starting work on the Grantee evaluations2 also indicates a positive response from the community.
Why this is positive?
The introduction of this feature continues to be a positive development as it aims to democratize the voting process by reducing the concentration of voting power. It encourages recognition and support for delegates who make valuable contributions but have less voting power. This could lead to a more balanced and fair representation in decision-making processes. Furthermore, the initiation of work on the Grantee evaluations by DisruptionJoe2 is a positive step towards assessing the impact and effectiveness of the grants.
Why this is negative?
While the feature has its merits, it could potentially be seen as negative if it is not implemented or used correctly. For instance, if the endorsement process is manipulated or if delegates with large voting power do not participate in endorsing others, it could lead to further concentration of power. However, these potential negatives are speculative and not directly mentioned in the summaries. The Grantee evaluations, while a positive step, could also be seen as negative if they are not conducted fairly or transparently.
Posted 24 days ago
Last reply 22 days ago
Summary updated 22 days ago
Last updated 09/12 13:53