I think this is a bad idea. It is speculation, far from a "no doubt" proposal.
It is simple economics, far from speculation... supply and demand, man.
Relying on volunteers is in fact a subsidy. By relying on unpaid volunteers is not a wise way to operate a company, a DAC, and have stability, growth and sustainability.
A true DAC would not have paid employees, autonomous is part of the acronym for a reason.
I am all for volunteerism. BitShares wouldn't exist without volunteers, but for essential operations that maintain the integrity and security of the network in a decentralized manor it would be foolish to remove the incentive for good quality witnesses to do their job.
A "DAC" has certain expenses, such as infrastructure, "witnesses" for example. Name a not-for-profit company in the real world that is not subsidized and is also self sustaining AND GROWING.
Delegate expenses are unnecessary at this point in Bitshares' life. It can stand on its own two feet. What business would not cut unnecessary expenses?
I don't even think you could technically call non-paid delegates volunteers, as certainly they have enough skin in the game to make it worthwhile due to the appreciating value of the token that would result from their running a delegate node.
Now that there is very little development and client updates, running a delegate node requires little to no effort.
Where were you @CoinHoader when the discussion about witness fees took place? Are you aware witness pay was recently doubled in an effort to improve feeds and witness involvement?
I have given up on Bitshares, as have most of the crypto speculators. I own no equity, and would not recommend investing in it. I just thought I'd pop in and suggest this idea is all. Do with it what you will.
Doubling delegate pay seems like a horrible idea though. A failing business that is bleeding cash should be cutting expenses, not increasing them, and it is even more so idiotic to be doubling them.