Review of Delegate's VP issued by Esteban Ordano

First and foremost, I want to highlight that the purpose of this review is not to pass any unfavorable judgment on the individuals who have been delegated VP from EO (Esteban Ordano). It is crucial to recognize that the vast majority, if not all, of the delegates have actively engaged in the DAO, demonstrating their commitment to community building with constructive feedback and comments on various proposals, irrespective of the final outcomes. Their valuable contributions have greatly enhanced the discourse within the community.

The purpose of this review is to reflect the sentiment within the community regarding the VP delegation from EO, aiming to bring forth any concerns or differences that may exist.

It has been approximately 6 months since the delegation took place, during which each delegate was granted 500k VP. However, it is worth considering that due to the significant amount of VP held by each individual, they wield considerable influence over the outcome of proposed initiatives. Consequently, the decision-making process tends to be dominated by the top five to ten voters, often overshadowing the voices of smaller stakeholders who have invested their own funds into MANA, LAND, NAME and Wearables and actively participate in the DAO. This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among community members.

With that in mind, I would like to propose that EO considers redistributing his VP to a larger pool of delegates, expanding the number from 8 to 16 or more. Over the past 6 months, numerous applications have been submitted by deserving individuals who should be given the opportunity to exert greater influence in the voting process for proposals.

Furthermore, I suggest that delegates who benefit from EO's delegation ABSTAIN from voting but are allowed to provide comments.

I kindly request both the community and EO to also take into account the number of votes in favor or against a proposal, rather than solely focusing on the total VP attached to each option. This approach would ensure that every participant has an equal voice in this matter, taking into consideration that automated voting bots may also be present.

In conclusion, the objective of this review is to foster open discussion and promote a fair and inclusive decision-making process within the community.