I just finished listening to the Delegate call discussion. Some thoughts:
(i) My sense is this is not really an urgent or pressing issue but people are interested in investigating. I would thereby propose that we don’t vote now on incentives directly but on setting up an exploratory on what incentive structure would suit zkSync in particular and possibly even to construct a proposal to be voted on later.
(ii) I noticed in some discussion what would be considered work to be incentivised. On this I am a minimalist.
Paying attention to discussion forums, attending calls (or watching them), reviewing proposals, voting on proposals etc. is the work. I don’t believe delegates should need to do more than this and implore folks to recognise you are already doing a lot (currently for free!). Those are your responsibilities and those are what you are incentivised to do.
If we need more specific work, like research, etc., we hire specialists.
(iii) If we are to pursue more complex models where delegates do more work then we should look into committees, working groups, BORGs, etc. I really dislike the concept of small, medium and big delegates but if we must have such a concept then identifying more active via committee roles seems preferable.
(iv) An interesting topic that crops up a lot of fear over the ‘wrong’ delegates turning up. I might be smooth-braining it here, but it seems likely to me that most delegates who would quality for incentives are incumbent, i.e. the people already selected broadly by people. Is there much evidence of these bad actors turning up post-incentize when we’re discussing a DAO of this scale? (I can certainly see captures at smaller ones).
Anyway, my sense is to move the needle forward probably we should get someone to explore the suitable models for us and choose rather than keep the discussion quite abstract.