The below commentary reflects my personal opinions and is in no way reflective of Event Horizon as a community nor how Event Horizon may vote in future proposals. Event Horizon governance is entirely determined by the collective decision making of the community, not the thoughts of any one individual
I’ll start by saying, I appreciate the stable labs team and their work here. I broadly support expanding the delegate body and voter participation.
Increase post-program delegation: I strongly believe follow-through is key. Should we want newly onboarded delegates to stay, they should feel as though they have graduated into becoming a durable, meaningful stakeholder in the ecosystem. With only 5,000 in delegated VP, I’m not sure this will be accomplished. Doubling the post program delegation to 10,000 SCR would be more suitable.
Eliminate The Program Incentives: The program offering itself is comprehensive and clearly designed with a great deal of care. The reward is being part of the cohort. If we are to attract individuals truly passionate about governance, compensation shouldn’t be necessary. Respectfully, I disagree with Pedro in that, I do not believe more incentive is at all necessary, so long as the post-program delegation is sufficient. Greater non-VP-based incentives only muddies alignment and participant intentions. This would, even if modestly, also preserve treasury value.
Event Horizon Support: I support this initiative agnostic of whether Event Horizon is supporting it or not. However, if the program team finds any value in utilizing the Event Horizon product and tooling, I would work to explore possibilities.
-
The Event Horizon Interface provides DAO-specific agents to help retail voters better understand governance. See link above for more details.
-
The Event Horizon infrastructure allows for vote pooling which can be distributed in creative ways. One example, Event Horizon could provide hats through hats protocol (graduation caps?) which offer successful post-program graduates multiplied VP when using the community SCR pool (currently the 5th largest delegation in the Scroll ecosystem). These hats would be revocable and transferable by the DAO and could be redistributed in the future as the program creators of DAO see fit.
Beyond this, I am open to calls and brainstorming if there seems to be a thread worth pulling here.
Budget: I have a lot of respect for @connormcmk 's candor here in speaking against his own potential compensation. I am not knowledgeable enough with regards to educational programs to be the right person to specifically suggestion budgets. However, I tend to agree with Connor’s logic and the general notion that the budget (unless further complexity and details are left out of the proposal as it stands) seem like they could be a bit more efficient – not a huge sticking point though.
Technical Emphasis: I agree with Pedro in that there should be greater emphasis on the Scroll Ecosystem and technical components. This is a great point.
KPIs: I also agree with @pedro in that the KPI structure is a bit loose. One remedy would be to remove KPIs but rather allow each cohort member to write a post-program personal report and appeal by which they share with the DAO what they’ve learned, what they’ve done, and what they will do. From this, the DAO can vote to ‘approve’ or ‘pass’ on that individual’s post-program delegation reward.