In regards to *number one* (Earn $BREE for holding DeFi assets), does it mean if you don't hold those defi assets you won't be able to fully participate in governance? What is the minimum amount of the DeFi assets are needed to participate in governance?
*Number two* (Earn $BREE for proposing/voting) sounds good in my opinion. Maybe make it optional for those who don't have defi assets. Defi assets holders will probably just stake & earn more tokens/coins for merely holding.
I think everyone should be able to participate (whether staking or not), make valuable contributions and earn rewards/coins/tokens for their contributions.
By the way, why impose limits (with the use of delegate governors) on those who can propose new ideas? If it's for quality reason, why not allow everyone to propose ideas on "Unfiltered section", then the best ideas on the Section automatically get moved to Filtered or Main section?
Majority of the community members simply do not care about these governance protocols. They are only after those sweet yields.
To attract lots of quality participants/contributors, my incentive or reward models would be to rank participants up according to the value of their contributions, how long they participate with the community etc...
As participants rank up in the community, you keep promoting or granting them additional privileges, opportunities, increased earning power on their contributions, etc..
Reputation/trustworthiness can also be used to incentive participants. This will ad to their overall decentralized Network/Blockchain reputation
I think every good contribution by all members should be rewarded. The community could create lists of agreed rules and principles and automatically reward members who do not break them during their important community contributions. Members should automatically earn rewards after being active doing something useful or contributing to something good, but if someone or bots downvote you for breaking some rules/principles (with proofs), you lose part of the rewards, depending on the seriousness of the rules/principles violated... both the upvoters and downvoters would be rewarded manually/automatically based on the accuracy of their votes, or better still based on the correctness (with proofs) of the reviews left by the upvoters/downvoters.
There should be very qualified/honest/accountable people who give their final verdicts on the reviews after verification and canceling of wrong or undeserved downvotes/upvotes... Rewards can then be distributed to participants after the final assessment is completed
