Delegation only works if people trust who they’re delegating to. It shouldn’t just be about picking the biggest wallet or most active account. I’d rather delegate to someone who actually understands the proposals and can explain why they voted a certain way.
@rollxfi Maybe governance should make delegate activity easier to see too. What they voted on, how they usually vote, and what areas they care about. Would you delegate based on voting history or just someone you already trust?
G Morning CT
Something I’ve been thinking about with @rollxfi governance: participation shouldn’t end after you cast your vote. The interesting part is what happens after the decision.
GM CT
Not every community proposal is going to pass.
But I think a rejected idea can still be useful if the community understands why it didn’t make the cut.
Was the timing wrong?
Was the impact too small?
Was there a better alternative?
That feedback can make the next proposal much stronger.
How should @RollX handle good ideas that don’t pass the first time?
Did the proposal work as expected? Did it actually solve the problem? What could have been done differently? Having that feedback loop could make each governance decision more useful than the last.
What would you want @rollxfi to track after a proposal passes?
Gm 𝕏
Been thinking about @rollxfi proposals and what should actually make one stand out. A good idea shouldn’t win just because it gets the most attention. The problem it solves and the value it brings should matter too.
@rollxfi Maybe governance needs a better way to separate “interesting idea” from “idea worth building.” What would you look at first when deciding which community proposal deserves attention?