Body 1
Delegates need to be incentivized with constant, predictable, and attractive rewards (already said this in intro). Because free labor is slavery - this is of course an extreme view. College kids, for example, are more willing to work for free if they learn and acquire skills. Once they graduate tho, they will be attracted to jobs that pay them. We say that money doesn’t matter, and that you shouldn’t chase after financial rewards, but the reality is that people need money and to be compensated competitively so they don’t leave. Good talent requires money.
You may be thinking, well, at the big traditional finance firms people get paid a lot of money and look where that greed got us — unethical and even fraudulent activity. So I’m not advocating for paying an exorbitant amount, we need to decide on an amount that is fair, equitable, and competitive.
Thus, on the one hand you have delegates advocates of this program who want constant, predictable, and attractive rewards. But there need to be constraints: the compensation should be fair and not egregious. Paying delegates too much money sets a bad tone and creates a bad precedent for the entire market for years to come. Don’t want to overprice delegates. But also don’t want to lowball them.
Every incentive program needs constraints.
Perhaps also delegate programs can be tailored to the work that delegates do. Shouldn’t delegates have different roles/areas or expertise? In general, Delegates in a DAO are in charge of funding public goods and protocol maintenance and upgrades This is in a non governance minimization type of environment, which is today’s reality.
I think right now we just need a simple framework that is grounded in reality. Like a minimum viable delegate comp. framework that can be changed later when inevitably it will need to be. So a framework that is adaptable.