That is fair, but I’d say that in those special cases where the vote would be close, I think the same concerns arise for the lock-up system (or any other system I could think of). A mega-whale could come in, lock for 2 weeks, influence vote, and then leave again.
Yes I think it is definitely worth spending resources on. The Bitocracy is the beating heart of Sovryn, and ways to optimize it are both important and better done early. I agree that if revenue is pumped high enough, it will be at some point become attractive enough, and stakers will be happy. Sure. But I think that is besides the point, people could be paid to use Internet Explorer and be happy. Doesn’t make it any good.
This proposal came out of a Discord discussion, where (committed and knowledgeable) community members said that staking makes no sense to them. And I agree. Speaking for myself, I would have staked way more than I do now, if I didn’t need to hand over control over assets on a long time frame on the basis of promises. It feels like a Degen bet (and that’s fine, and I enjoy those, but only with 1% holdings). I would increase my stake if there was no lock-up, keeping the revenue as it is now. When staking doesn’t minimize the risk that people are asked to take, then it will struggle to draw in the sort of sensible people that make for a strong community and good governance. Pumping revenue doesn’t help with that, it arguably only makes it worse. Now Sovryn is helped a lot by its vision (managing to draw in sensible people despite hiccups and flaws); but I think it’s crucial that we optimize for good governance. I think the proposal would really improve it.