ongoing difficulties remain in effectively monitoring delegate accountability and accurately measuring the program’s impact on governance participation.
Transparency is another significant concern, as DAO members often struggle to track governance dynamics effectively.
In honesty, we are not yet persuaded at the value proposition stated for this proposal. GIP-101 has yet to see any action, so it’s a bit soon to say that difficulties still remain post-implementation. The point about transparency also seems a little convenient and unsupported.
To us, there’s a question of whether now is the right time, whilst participation is still so low (and therefore easy to follow) and GIP-101 hasn’t yet had any substantive effects. Assuming we can take up this offer at any time (subject to then-current pricing), we see no rush to add financial liabilities while the value proposition is still being tested.
We would also be interested to hear from @Curia on the link between the proposed GIP-123, and the separate GIP-124, which covers similar data gathering exercises to boost governance initiatives. Are the two straight alternatives? And given Curia’s status as a proposed delegate to GnosisDAO, what feedback does it have on that proposal?
That all said, we would support moving this to Phase 2, for an initial temp check vote. We would like to address GIP-123 and GIP-124 in the same cohort.