@Tekr0x.eth I will add it to the agenda when I post it tomorrow!
2 Likes
I’ve created a resource where I compare different delegate programs here:
Let me know if there are programs you know of that you want to add, ideally with a link to the program.
I’ll keep expanding this over time and include more data in the next month or two.
5 Likes
The way incentives are set up now in most projects can attract the wrong profile of delegate—people who are more focused on collecting rewards rather than actually contributing value or representing the community. It’s wild that we’re ranking crypto delegates purely based on token votes, which is like shareholders directly running the show without any checks.
In corporate gov, you’ve got nominating committees to vet and propose candidates who represent a diversity in stakeholder class. Could have something like that here? A nominating council could do the homework—dig into candidate profiles, put together a solid report, and nominate people directly (with justification! on why they are representative of stakeholder class xyz that is important to goal A) to represent zk stakeholders. I do however feel its really important then pay for that representatives time. They’re not supposed to be as specialized as protocol builders or product managers. The real value of the delegate system lies in the diversity of perspectives they bring—ratifying and overseeing program implementations with a long-term view that entrenched builders just don’t have the capacity for.
TLDR incentives are important, but they need to be paired with structure. Otherwise they just invite mediocrity.
1 Like
It’s wild that we’re ranking crypto delegates purely based on token votes, which is like shareholders directly running the show without any checks.
I agree, it’s not good to rank delegates only by votes. It should also take into account the value they provide in creating or discussing proposals etc. Of course, someone would need to check that for each delegate, so if the evaluation system is very complex, it could bring too much overhead.
I think the best would be to start with a short pilot program based on best practices from other DAOs. And then evaluate everything and make adjustments after it is finished. A nominating council might be an overkill at this point, but it could be something to do after the pilot, when it’s more clear who and how many people are interested in being active delegates.
2 Likes
I am not sure we are at the point yet, where zksync delegate work is work. I understand that checking the forums and being up to date is not a thing of seconds, but at least right now the work load doesn’t seem to high.
I think there will be months with a lot of work, and there will be months with less work. Perhaps the incentive program could be designed in a way where delegates get compensated based on the amount of work there was in a given month? 
So if there was less work to do in the past month, the compensation would be lower.
1 Like
If we find a good design, I am def in favor.
My main point is: If someone wants to be a (zksync) delegate but doesn’t even have time to monitor the forums for a few hours a week, but starts being more active when there’s an incentive involved… I am not sure this is the right delegate the incentive program should be aiming for.
If it’s a lot of work, delegates should be compensated. E.g. the STIP vetting and voting was a huge amount of work from what people told me, so they should be paid. zksync is just not there yet, but if we introduce incentives now, this would likely attract the wrong delegate profile, would be gamed and we can only spend every ZK once. Hence we should really make sure if there are incentives, those go to quality delegates that really make a difference in the zksync ecosystem.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
After yesterday’s call, it seems everyone agrees with the idea of Delegate incentives/compensation, and there’s a shared understanding and commitment to do this the right way.
With that in mind, I’m interested to know what would be the next steps here and who should take the lead in drafting the initial proposal. Should this be an open call for anyone to do it, should it be a group of delegates, the governance team, or perhaps an external hire?
While I don’t think this is something we need to solve and implement immediately, I do believe in putting things in motion sooner rather than later and iterating and improving on the go. Unless there’s a potential downside that outweighs the upside.
But I’m ok too with waiting in hopes of weeding out those who are here for the wrong reasons. Although this might put us in the position of losing quality delegates who value their time and knowledge, and might further decrease Delegate participation.
2 Likes
agreed, see JUP, they are pretty strong on user<->protocol development
(ps. i’ve no problems for raising ‘standard/criteria’ as well)
Hey everyone!
We’ve been closely following the feedback and ideas shared in this thread and during the delegates call. Our goal is to incorporate these insights into a tailored proposal that addresses delegate incentives effectively and aligns with ZkNation general vision.
We’ll share a RFC-like draft soon to ensure it reflects the community’s priorities and invite further input to push things forward! The contributions so far have been superb
3 Likes