Activating Governance - From Lazy Votes to Curated Stewardship
Current governance dynamics favor convenience over conviction, resulting in stagnant allocations and low-signal decision outcomes.
This proposal introduces a phased upgrade: Phase 1 rewards active participation and intent, while Phase 2 enables transparent, staked Navigators to improve allocation quality through voluntary delegation.
Together, these changes aim to unlock smarter capital allocation, faster dApp discovery, and a more resilient governance framework at scale.
Phase 1: Introducing Freshness & Governance Intent Multipliers
Objective
This first phase introduces two incentive mechanisms - Freshness Multiplier and Governance Intent Multiplier - designed to improve voting quality, enhance governance signal integrity, and ensure that reward distribution better reflects genuine engagement, responsibility, and ecosystem contribution.
The overarching goal is to align incentives with meaningful participation, without increasing complexity or friction for users.
Problem 1: Lazy Votes in Weekly Voting
Problem Statement
Weekly allocation voting has gradually become highly reward-driven, resulting in widespread “lazy voting” behavior. Many users leave their voting configuration unchanged for long periods, leading to:
-
Allocation outcomes that do not accurately reflect the real quality, innovation, or performance of dApps.
-
Structural disadvantages for new or emerging dApps, which struggle to attract attention or capital allocation.
-
Underutilisation and misallocation of voting power, weakening the overall governance signal of the ecosystem.
Analysis
-
Incentive Misalignment: A significant portion of voters are primarily motivated by weekly voting rewards rather than thoughtful allocation.
-
Convenience Bias: Auto-voting and unchanged configurations reduce user effort, but also significantly diminish the effectiveness and responsiveness of voting power.
-
Stagnant Outcomes: When votes rarely change, weekly voting loses its purpose as a discovery and signaling mechanism.
In short, convenience has overtaken responsibility, and voting power is no longer being exercised as intended.
Solution: Make Updating Votes Strictly Better
We propose maintaining the simplicity of weekly voting, while making active participation economically superior to passive behavior.
The system should explicitly reward voters who:
-
Regularly reassess and update their voting configuration.
-
Explore and support a broader range of dApps.
-
Actively and responsibly manage their voting power over time.
Definition: “Update”
An Update is defined as any intentional modification to a user’s weekly voting configuration, including:
-
Adding or removing one or more dApps.
-
Changing allocation weights.
-
Rebalancing percentages across existing dApps.
Any of the above actions qualifies as a valid update.
Freshness Multiplier
A voter’s weekly voting power is multiplied by a Freshness Multiplier, determined by how recently they updated their voting configuration.
This mechanism directly incentivises ongoing evaluation and engagement, without forcing complexity:
-
Updates every week → 3.00× multiplier;
-
Updates once every 2 weeks → 2.00× multiplier;
-
No update for 3 or more consecutive rounds → 1.00× multiplier.
Expected Outcomes
-
Encourages voters to regularly reassess dApp performance and relevance.
-
Increases exposure and opportunity for new and high-quality dApps.
-
Transforms weekly voting from a passive yield activity into an active governance signal.
-
Improves capital efficiency and ecosystem adaptability over time.
Problem 2: Ineffective Governance Proposal Voting
Problem Statement
Current governance proposal voting exhibits extremely high abstention rates:
-
50-60% of votes are Abstain, often coming from over 10,000 wallets.
-
For/Against votes typically come from fewer than 2,000 wallets in recent proposals.
At this stage of ecosystem maturity:
-
Abstain votes contribute minimal informational or governance value.
-
High abstention artificially inflates participation optics without improving decision quality.
-
Proposal outcomes are effectively determined by a small subset of voters, despite large nominal participation.
Solution: Reward Governance Intent, Not Passivity
Abstain should remain a legitimate governance option, preserving freedom of choice. However, earning proposal voting rewards should require expressed intent.
To achieve this, we propose a Governance Intent Multiplier that differentiates between active decision-making and passive abstention.
Governance Intent Multiplier
-
For/Against → 1.00x;
-
Abstain → 0.30x.
Rationale
-
For/Against votes represent clear governance intent and signal conviction.
-
Abstain remains available for uncertainty or neutrality, but with proportionally reduced rewards.
-
Incentivises voters to read, understand, and take a position on proposals.
-
Improves the signal-to-noise ratio in governance outcomes.
Summary of Benefits
By introducing Freshness and Governance Intent multipliers, Phase 1 delivers:
-
Stronger alignment between rewards and meaningful participation.
-
More dynamic, responsive, and fair weekly allocation outcomes.
-
Increased visibility and opportunity for new and high-quality dApps.
-
More accurate and actionable governance signals.
-
A healthier long-term foundation for decentralised decision-making.
This phase focuses on incentive refinement, not complexity, ensuring adoption remains frictionless while governance quality materially improves.
Phase 2: Introduction of the Navigator Role
Overview
Phase 2 introduces a Navigator system, enabling users to delegate their weekly voting decisions to trusted, transparent, and accountable Navigators who vote on their behalf.
This mechanism is designed to professionalise voting behavior without centralising power, improving vote quality and ecosystem adaptability while preserving user sovereignty.
Objectives
The Navigator system aims to:
-
Improve weekly vote quality and freshness through active, accountable voting agents.
-
Enhance discoverability of new and high-quality dApps, reducing inertia-driven allocation.
-
Further reduce lazy voting behavior, while improving convenience for regular users.
-
Enable professionalised curation without compromising decentralisation or permissionlessness.
-
Align incentives through staking, fees, and slashing, ensuring Navigator accountability.
System Roles
Navigators (Senators)
Navigators are public voting agents who manage delegated voting power on behalf of users, operating under strict transparency, staking, and accountability requirements.
Navigator Requirements
Each Navigator must:
-
Maintain a public profile including but not limited to:
-
Voting philosophy and strategy (e.g., retention-first, growth-first, impact-first);
-
Historical voting behavior.
-
-
Provide full conflict-of-interest disclosures, including:
- Compensation, token allocations, or advisory relationships with any dApp.
-
Maintain a minimum stake in the Navigator Pool.
-
Vote weekly on behalf of users (citizens).
-
Monitor, audit, and publish a Navigator Report at least once every two rounds, covering, e.g.:
-
Allocation rationale;
-
Strategy changes;
-
dApp performance insights;
-
Recommendations for high-quality or newly emerging dApps;
-
And more.
-
Users (Citizens)
Users are individual wallet addresses that may choose to delegate their voting power.
User rights and guarantees:
-
One wallet may delegate voting power to one Navigator at a time;
-
Delegation can be withdrawn at any time;
-
Users retain full ownership of VOT3;
-
Users receive normal voting rewards based on their VOT3 and the Phase 1 multipliers;
-
Navigator fees are automatically deducted from users’ weekly rewards.
Navigator Onboarding & Activation Pipeline
Step 1: Application
Prospective Navigators must submit an application via a Navigator Portal, including:
-
Public profile;
-
Voting strategy and principles;
-
Conflict-of-interest disclosures;
-
Wallet address;
-
Fixed Navigator Fee Rate - 20%;
-
Social Media links…
Step 2: Stake Deposit
To activate, Navigators must deposit a stake into the Navigator Pool.
Staking Requirements
The required stake is defined as 10% of total delegated VOT3, subject to the following bounds:
-
Minimum Stake:
-
50,000 VOT3;
-
Corresponding to delegations up to 500,000 delegated VOT3.
-
-
Maximum Stake:
-
1% of total circulating VOT3;
-
Corresponds to a maximum delegation of 10% of circulating VOT3.
-
Dynamic Stake Enforcement
-
If a Navigator’s stake falls below the 10% requirement (due to slashing or increased delegation), the Navigator must top up.
-
If delegated VOT3 exceeds the Navigator’s allowed cap:
-
Excess delegation is accepted first-come, first-served;
-
Later delegations beyond the cap become ineffective until stake is increased.
-
E.g. If a Navigator with 50,000 VOT3 has reached the 500,000 VOT3 delegation cap, new delegations must wait, choose another Navigator, or the Navigator must increase their stake.
-
Auto-Removal Condition
-
If stake remains below the minimum threshold (50,000 VOT3) for 7 consecutive days, the Navigator is automatically removed.
-
All delegations immediately become ineffective.
Fee Locking
-
Navigator fees are locked in the Navigator Pool for 4 rounds.
-
Fees become claimable only after the lock period expires.
Voting Power
Base Voting Power
Navigator voting power = sum of delegated VOT3, subject to user-level multipliers.
* No additional base voting power is granted by default.
Multiplier Inheritance
Delegated voting power inherits:
-
Freshness Multiplier, based on Navigator rotation behavior;
-
Governance Intent Multiplier, based on Navigator proposal voting behavior;
Example
-
If a Navigator rotates allocations every week and casts For or Against votes on proposals (if applicable), then delegated voting power receives:
-
3.00Ă— Freshness Multiplier;
-
1.00Ă— Governance Intent Multiplier.
-
Rewards Structure
Navigators (Senators)
-
Earn a Navigator Fee - 20% of users’ rewards.
-
Fees are automatically calculated and locked.
-
Long-term performance and trust drive delegation growth.
Users (Citizens)
-
Receive standard voting rewards based on:
-
VOT3;
-
Freshness Multiplier;
-
Governance Intent Multiplier.
-
-
No reduction in base rewards beyond Navigator fee.
Slashing Framework
Stake Rules
-
Navigators must maintain the minimum required stake at all times.
-
All slashed funds are burned.
-
Falling below minimum stake for 7 days triggers automatic removal.
-
Re-entry requires full reapplication.
Resignation & Exit Rules
-
A Navigator must publicly announce their resignation at least one week before casting their final vote on behalf of delegators.
-
The Navigator may withdraw the staked funds only after the final vote.
-
Example: If the Navigator announces resignation in Round N, they may cast their final vote in Round N+1 (7 days later) and withdraw the stake thereafter.
Slashing Events & Penalties
Minor Slashes (Slash 10% of Stake)
Automatically executed by protocol rules, e.g.:
-
Missed weekly votes & proposal votes;
-
Failure to publish required reports twice within 4 rounds.
Major Slashes (Slash up to 100% of Stake & Locked Fees + Removal)
Applied in cases of severe misconduct, e.g.:
-
Governance manipulation or bribery;
-
Vote buying;
-
Undisclosed paid relationships with dApps;
-
System attacks…
Major Slashing Process
-
Community Monitoring;
-
Investigation Trigger: An investigation shall be initiated only when a minimum of five Navigators have agreed to lock their stakes.
-
Investigation Period: Findings shall be made public upon the conclusion of the investigation within 4 rounds.
-
Governance Vote:
-
A formal proposal determines the final slashing outcome.
-
Locked stake and fees are burned upon approval.
Summary
The Navigator system introduces a market-driven, accountable layer of governance expertise, while preserving decentralisation and user sovereignty.
It:
-
Reduces voting inertia;
-
Improves allocation quality;
-
Creates a reputation economy around governance;
-
Aligns incentives through staking, fees, and slashing.
Phase 2 builds directly on Phase 1, transforming governance from passive participation into active, professional stewardship, without introducing custodial risk or centralised control.