If this delegate does not get voted in within, say, 2 weeks, we'll know that the current governance model does not represent shareholder intent.delegate-proposal-proxy-test.misc.nikolai
(1% pay, but I'll take him offline as soon as he is voted in)
BM and I have gone back and forth, with me claiming we need to get proposal-based governance online ASAP and him arguing that delegates provide a good-enough proxy since shareholders can always use a "poll" delegate. BM claims it would add voter complexity, but I think that's wrong. It is much much easier to analyze self-contained proposals with their own UX than it is to find and analyze various delegate bids. It is also qualitatively different to think about a proposal when it is presented as "shareholders need your input on this yes/no question right now".
It would require no changes to the protocol (it can be hacked in using non-delegate-accounts + burn features, more on this when it's relevant) and minimal changes to the user interface. It can and should wait for after 1.0
even though it could be offloaded entirely to someone like svk if we really wanted and BM probably could have done it in the time he's been working on prediction market stuff.
If you think I'm wrong, arguing in this thread is meaningless, PROVE IT by voting that guy in.
"So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want proposal-based governance? "
Yes, this is what I meant. IF delegate-based proposals are "good enough" then shareholders should confirm that they think so.