I am slightly puzzled in the way governance works. Right now we lock (commit) algos for one quarter and this gives us the right to vote once in this quarter (possibly on multiple questions). I feel that this structure has several drawbacks for the Foundation.
It is an expensive process from which the Foundation gains limited interaction with the governors (yes-no answers to a limited set of questions). It is also slow since if the Foundation wants to submit a follow up proposition or resubmit a proposition slightly modified it has to wait more than three months.
I am wondering about the possibility of changing this. Here are few ideas to start the discussion:
To have more than one vote in one governance period. Governors would get rewarded only if they partook in all the votes. This has the advantage of staying closer to the structure we all know while giving more freedom to the Foundation.
(closer to governance in PoS protocols) Governors stack their algos in a governance vault. Governors can later add more algos to the vault or unlock only a portion of their stake. Unlocking typically has a vesting period to avoid ppl entering and exiting the vaut constantly. The Foundation submits propositions as they flow. Governors can vote and get rewarded based on the amount of their stake. I am not a huge fan of locking up algos as it is not in the spirit of PPoS but in some sense we already have to self-lock algos to participate in governance. Could also be technically more challenging to implement
Shorten gov periods. Every time the Foundation has a proposition she announces two weeks in advance that their will be a vote. Governors willing to partake in the vote commit their algo during these two weeks and can vote at the end. This could create artificial demands before the vote and dump afterwards since the commitment is short.
I thus personally prefer the first solution. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the matter or other suggestions