Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking about how delegation in DAOs tends to stagnate over time. Early delegates accumulate voting power and reputation, but as things evolve, some become inactive or disconnected from current community sentiment. Meanwhile, new contributors may feel locked out of the process unless they explicitly campaign for votes. What if we explored a system of dynamic delegate rotation for Unit Zero?
The idea isn’t to punish strong delegates, but to ensure the delegate layer stays active, responsive, and representative. For example, delegations could expire after a set period (say, six months), prompting token holders to reassign or reaffirm their choices. Another option might be a system that periodically flags low-activity delegates and suggests alternative options to voters.
We could also experiment with partial delegation cycles—where a portion of delegation power gets “unlocked” on a rotating basis, encouraging voters to check in without overwhelming them. I know some people value long-term consistency in representation, but too much inertia can lead to governance bottlenecks.
Curious to hear what others think. Would a time-based or performance-based delegate rotation work in practice? What risks or unintended effects should we be aware of? And does Unit Zero need a more proactive approach to governance participation as it grows?