In general I like the idea you are going with but I do see one issue with the suggestion that only the proposal that receives the most votes is put to the general vote (or in a more general case, N ideas with the most votes). This way, a whale could censor other ideas by spamming their proposals just to get their own always to the general vote. Hence, I’d prefer to have a constant limit that a proposal must achieve. This could result in a less predictable number of proposals that are passed to the general vote but would be a more transparent process. This then leads essentially to referendums, which has already been suggested e.g. initially during G2 or in a updated form during G3 but unfortunately never gained traction. That suggestion goes even closer to the principles of PPoS by considering time-weighted stake, i.e. if one is committed to supporting a proposal for a longer period, it would eventually get to the general vote even if the supporting stake is small. This way, even ideas brought up by small holders could be heard if their conviction is strong. Another difference to your suggestion is that multiple wallets can contribute towards reaching the limit X, which fosters collaboration.
1 Like