$CREAM MetaGovernance Delegation

[Kiba]

By high-level strategy and how this benefits INDEX holder do you mean CREAM metagovernance directly (like " “Principles Over Rules” in MetaGov Framework ) or Index Coop <> CREAM collabs facilitated through metagovernance (like products I mentioned in IIP description)?

MetaGov Framework includes delegated committees. This structure has been proposed/outlined in almost every metagov doc, we are just the first to create a proposal to implement it. (maybe I should have given more context on this in proposal, assumed everyone was aware of this)

@cedrick

Proxy System

Not all $INDEX holders care about the non-economic benefits of holding the token, and we have an opportunity to provide a means of allowing them to transfer that right to a group who will take the charge seriously. Considerations for discussions:

• Whether to incentivize a proxy election with rewards. Index Coop would be receiving a valued benefit and there’s likely a value-clearing spread between how Index Coop values meta-governance power and passive holders’ indifference.
• This would also allow Index Coop (through a specific meta-governance committee or working group) to exert more influence on meta-governance votes and allow the principle-based voting more room to flourish (and also increase incentive for underlying tokens to coordinate with Index Coop).
• It’s worth noting that there’s some tension with decentralization here, but the idea is to target those holders who do not or would not want to participate in the voting. Still, open to feedback on this point.

@verto0912 so you are in favor of delegation but would prefer a general metagov committee vs specialists for each protocol? Greg and Noah are against delegation at all and would prefer voting remains with INDEX holders (the few that actually vote). I’m down for your suggestion, I just want more app/community specific expertise in metagov so we can actually help our component tokens and integrate IC the best way possible.