Thanks for answers on 1 + 2, that definitely clears it up.
On 3 - I don’t think that’s a sufficient answer. We have a very clear and strict methodology for DPI which helps guide us in many ways - selecting assets, explaining benefits to holders, and ensuring trust in platforms. Why would we not have the same thoroughness with how we manage the assets within DPI as we do in selecting them?
Of course we can do it but the more important question is why are doing it? What value do we expect to give these other communities, what do we expect in return, how do we decide which actions achieve these? Regardless if we are directly voting or delegating to another party we need to figure this out before hand so we know how to course correct if things don’t go well, or even to have a course to go on to begin with. With no expected value to us or others, metagovernance isn’t worth wasting the energy and resources.
This is also important because of conflict of interests. Let’s assume all index holders are honest players but what happens if a non-coop member makes a proposal for us to vote “yes” on X proposal on Y protocol when we have no framework to decide? It may benefit a subset of that protocols users (the poster included) but not all members and we have no way of really evaluating so we just default to supporting it because someone from their community told us to and we’ve actually made a big mistake.