Thanks for the update on this.
Yeah I think the openness to alternative proposals and willingness to discuss quorum levels and delegate incentives is a positive step forward actually but I also think lowering the quorum level comes with certain risks and challenges that should be discussed upon too.
Breaking the token burn into yearly votes could provide a more measured approach too so that’s also another good step.
3 Likes
I support almost everything except lowering the quorum. In the current situation, that would be a power grab by the team. It’s unlikely the team will refuse to vote or reduce its voting stake (I mean Max, Oliver, and the Lisk Team).
3 Likes
Yes I think for the most part internally we also would lean away from lowering the quorum, mostly for security reasons. However, some here in the DAO have expressed support, so I personally would be open to a conversation about the pros / cons… maybe there is a balance?
Regarding lowering voting stake, tbh we initially wanted to re-direct some of the Lisk Delegate voting power to cover the new Lisk Partner Delegate Program, but unfortunately due to the way the staking was initiated (w/ 2 year max lock) it isn’t possible to use the same allocation atm without incurring substantial “rage quit” penalties. Hopefully it’s an option that becomes available in the future. We are also continuing to discuss / see if there would be a realistic alternative to still reallocate a portion of our current voting power (a bit trickier since it would need to be a large sum delegation, instead of splittable into smaller chunks)… open to suggestions.
1 Like