Term limits for Delegation of VP

I understand that this topic had a pre-poll prior to this post, however I think my personal name may have caused some bias on the discussion. I am asking for a meaningful discussion on this.

There are a bunch of reasons this should be implemented. In fact, I am having trouble finding reasons on why it shouldn’t. The only reason I can see why it shouldn’t be implemented is because it requires work to be done by the delegator and possible gas fees.

This would NOT put limits on the amount of times someone could be delegated, this would put limits on the amount of time delegation would exist per signed transaction.

Let’s use this hypothetical situation for example. I choose to delegate Wallet A 1000 VP. From the date I sign my contract to that delegate, if this term limit idea was implemented, the VP would be delegated for 1 year. After 1 year or whatever term the DAO decides, it would then return the VP back to the Delegator’s wallet. So as the delegator I would have to sign a transaction a new transaction to delegate it again. I always can keep choosing to delegate to Wallet A, but maybe after 1 year I realize that they are voting on proposals which are not in line with my personal beliefs. Maybe I would then choose to find someone who is more aligned with me. This would give me, the Delegator, responsibility in keeping up with their delegation, instead of turning my head and hoping everything works out.

Reasons Term limits for delegation of VP will be a positive improvement to the DAO:

  1. Reflection. It gives the delegator a chance to reflect on who they delegated their VP to this past term. It would give them the decision to continue their delegation with the same delegate or find a new delegate. This would require minimum interaction by the delegator.
  2. Inaccessible Wallets. Wallets that are owned by dead people or with lost private keys, will not indefinitely delegate their VP to someone else without the ability to un-delegate it.
  3. Uncomfortable Undelegating. Delegators may get uncomfortable undelegating their VP to someone. These terms may give some people a good reason to move around their VP.
    Maybe a Delegator just likes to choose someone new each term. It’s nothing against the delegate themselves, just they like to move around. This idea will be helpful and cause less friction and has the possibility to give more voices a chance to have some VP.
  4. Inactive Delegates. Look at how much land parcels there are without anything on them or nothing being built. Land Owners with VP may not pay attention to DCL, but may delegate someone to make decisions on their behalf. Without being involved in DCL, they may delegate their VP to someone and not ever come back to see how things are going. This gives them a reason to come back and see the progress made.

With these reasons, I think this should be considered. Please help me weigh this out as I would like to take the time to write a constructive proposal to move this forward if the DAO believes this is a good solution.

2 Likes

6 month and 1 year contracts with option to redelegate and undelegated at anytime. I agree with TudaMoon on this, This also makes sure those wallets that just delegate have a semi check and balance and tho they may walk away. They have to revisit the platform even if just to just redelegate to a delegate.

2 Likes

Yes probably a good idea to have some sort of limit, not sure how long or how short but best to have checks and balances when possible to avoid any abusing of the system.

3 Likes

Term limits would be a good way to incentivize delegates to be more active over delegating and dipping out with their fingers crossed for success. I think 3-6 month terms could be reasonable. An additional thought for incentivizing land owners to build. Add term limits on land that if it’s not updated over 6 months the VP for that land is inactive and may not vote. It may also help promote the rental market so the land owners don’t have to constantly build.

4 Likes