When I vote today i have the option to either vote as I selected or to vote as those delegates I selected recommend to vote. If everyone would do the latter voting participation would probably be much higher. The first option though gives the voter more control.
Combining the good of both could look like this: When I select x delegates I want to vote for 101-x delegates are complemented to my delegate slate based on the recommendations of those I selected.
It would be like a default for RDPOS when I don't know 101 delegates I can trust but that would be better than voting only with a fraction of your stake if you only know 5 you trust.
I don't support this. It centralizes power into fewer and fewer voters when we should be decentralizing power outward into greater and greater numbers of voters. In the long term it may also encourage us to be a nation of followers instead of a nation of individuals.
So on this I disagree with Bytemaster on strategy. In the short term this might not be a disaster but in the long term RDPoS could produce centralized points of failure. We already have the points of failure around Invictus and the irreplaceable key players but these points of failure are to be expected early on in the life of the project.
I recommend algorithmic voting and autonomous agents because in the long term we have to move away from depending on people to run institutions. If certain decision processes can be turned into algorithms they should be as this would be more economically efficient over time while also allowing greater levels of participation.
The reason for voter apathy is attention scarcity. RDPoS to me seems like a bandaid solution for the problem of attention scarcity when in my opinion the only sustainable solution involves using autonomous agents. The only way I see RDPoS working is if an algorithm or autonomous agent interacted with the DAC participant on the client side so that votes are distributed according to that.
This is no more centralized than the current system and in-fact, encourages decentralization because delegates compete on making solid recommendations that include other delegates.
It is a slippery slope. I see some short term benefits of RDPoS but I also see long term risks which more than offset the short term benefits unless RDPoS is modified to be flexible enough to adapt to future scenarios. The voter apathy problem is actually directly related to the attention scarcity problem.