Interesting feedback, and I’d also like to share my thoughts on the points you’ve raised:
-
One submission per team: I fully agree with your opinion that teams should submit only one application if it’s truly a single project. Although Obol explicitly allows multiple submissions from one project, they specified that these submissions should not overlap. In the case of eth-docker, we analyzed and voted for just one project for exactly this reason.
-
Voting by the top 100 delegates: We also don’t understand why it’s not possible to allow everyone the opportunity to vote. There are no technical issues with this, and it’s important for individuals to express their own opinion if they have the time to dive into the projects and prefer not to delegate. I can assume that smaller delegates may lack the motivation to analyze all the projects and spend tens of hours on it, but this should not be a reason to limit their voting power.
-
Conflict of interest: Many DAO Delegate Rules of Engagement include a clause on conflicts of interest, specifically prohibiting voting for oneself if it brings direct financial benefits. However, everyone knows that there’s no perfect world where everyone follows the rules, and this rule can be easily bypassed by dishonest delegates: you delegate tokens to an unknown address, and that address votes for you. The scheme is simple, and it’s nearly impossible to prove collusion. I understand Obol’s motives, and we personally did not vote for ourselves. Still, we find these rules strange because the system should regulate itself: if voting abuse occurs, our voting power should decrease as delegates. This kind of system actually encourages people to bypass the rules.
-
Funding clause: Regarding points 4 and 5, we believe the “funding” clause should be optional. Transparency will attract people to the project, as long as the development aligns with the funding amount.