非常好的提案。
同时提案中在投票人验证这一层的探索和设计，我非常赞同。
如果国库以后真要走到协议级公共财政这一步，那投票资格、投票权怎么映射、怎么验证，我觉得这些基础问题的设计都是极其重要的。
看到委托机制 / 代表机制这里，我还是有我的一些顾虑：
首先，我不是单纯反对代理制。
我只是有点担心：如果以后大量投票权通过代理关系集中到少数人手里，那么国库这种协议级公共资金的治理，会不会在实际上越来越集中。比如，像 Binance 这样的中心化交易所，如果以托管人身份代表持币人投票，可能就会带来这方面的风险。我记得23年Yeti也提出过相关的讨论。(General discussion) The voting rights of Binance and other exchanges/custodians
只是我个人的一点顾虑。总之，我非常支持这个提案。
This is a very good proposal.
At the same time, I strongly support the exploration and design work around voter verification mentioned in the proposal.
If the treasury is eventually going to become a form of protocol-level public finance, then I believe these foundational issues are extremely important: how voting eligibility is defined, how voting power is mapped, and how verification is carried out.
When I saw the part about the delegation / representative mechanism, I still had some concerns.
First, I am not simply opposed to delegation itself.
What I am a little concerned about is this: if a large amount of voting power is eventually concentrated in the hands of a small number of delegates, then governance over protocol-level public funds such as the treasury could in practice become increasingly concentrated as well. For example, if centralized exchanges such as Binance were to vote on behalf of token holders in their role as custodians, that could create this kind of risk. I remember that Yeti raised a related discussion back in 2023 as well:
https://talk.nervos.org/t/general-discussion-the-voting-rights-of-binance-and-other-exchanges-custodians/6888
These are just some personal concerns of mine.
Overall, I strongly support this proposal.