Thanks @jengajojo for the engagement on this one. I really appreciate your feedback.
I really like this option given it feeds into GTC utility - or using the governance token for something other than just voting. However at the moment the GTC staking stamp is limited to staking during Gitcoin rounds and it not yet an always-on feature. Once it is, I think this can be a powerful governance feature. Here I think about granting sliding governance influence linked to the duration and quantity of staked GTC. But that is for another proposal once the capability is in place.
This is one reason why I am bullish web3 governance. We are developing the capability to craft infinitely customizable governance mechanism that can (for the first time ever) attempt to balance differing stakeholder incentives (contributors vs. investors vs. users vs. ecosystem vs partners). The challenge for governance architects is to 1) limit bureaucracy 2) credibly evaluate outcomes 3) watch for unintended consequences.
What I like about your suggestions is it provides early thinking for cross-dao integration which is where I hope Gitcoin goes. This kind of thinking will lead us to antifragile networks and stronger linkages between nodes - especially as attacks get more sophisticated.
What I appreciate about Gitcoin Passport team is their thinking about the sum total of reputational value, or score. It’s less about an individual hypercert or passport stamp. Each of those certs or stamps have a dynamic anti sybil value - as scammers learn how to circumvent a stamp, that stamp degrades in value, and as such so does the governance strategy designed around individual stamps or hypercerts.
For this reason, I intend to change the paper above from “exploring options” to a proposal using the Gitcoin Passport “score” as opposed to individual stamps. I hope to have this strategy tested shortly so we can update this proposal and get on with it.