Unfortunately, this is not the case. My question is not about the need for others besides the Foundation being able to propose measures for vote, nor about the required commitments to be able to propose a measure. My only question is why is there a need or what are the deemed benefits for introduction of an additional layer instead of having the ability to propose measures on the same level as voting on proposals. This was not addressed by the Foundation neither during G2 nor during M2 of G3.
“Should not change significantly” is a rather vague argument when talking about security. In G3, ca. 3.5B ALGO participated, which is about a half of circulating supply. Indeed, to be able to make concrete claims on the security impacts of xGovs, it would be necessary to see how much ALGO will be committed. But it will be equal or smaller than in Governance, thus equal or less secure. But regardless of the amount in the end (even if all Governors participate in xGov), what is the benefit of taking on a potential additional risk from the introduction of another layer (as slight as that risk might be in the end)?
In another post and a subsequent update, I have outlined one possible solution that fulfills the same requirements without introducing an intermediate layer.
The difference in the two approaches is essentially I suggest that Governance emulates (initiative) referendums, while the Foundation suggests to have a sort of a mix of a representative system (for making proposals) and mandatory legislative referrals. While it’s true that with xGovs most likely anyone will be able to join on their own this representative body, I am not seeing the benefits of such a mixed system outweighing the cons, especially compared to a really purely direct participation system.
No, with my 2nd question I am referring to the following part of M2 of G3: