I am voting FOR, for this proposal.
I’m in support because this squarely targets two problems we actually feel: delegate incentive misalignment and low-signal decision making. Carroll Mechanisms are a credible step beyond “vote on pre-baked options” or “just futarchy it,” and the plan is stage-gated (M1 → M2/M3 only if feasibility holds). A few reasons this makes sense:
-
High-leverage R&D for Scroll’s brand: if we want to be the L2 where DAOs thrive, leading on governance mechanism design is on-strategy.
-
Aligned funding structure: SAFE + token warrant at a friendly cap ties upside to success vs. a pure grant.
-
Clear deliverables: formal feasibility in M1, parameterization in M2, and product integration (Negation Game) in M3.
-
Risk-aware: we’re not committing to production governance changes now, this is research + prototyping with adoption contingent on results.
For the cost ($145k), the optionality is attractive. Worst case, we get publishable research, open simulations, and better tooling intuition. Best case, we pilot a mechanism that measurably improves proposal quality and fair, objective delegate rewards.