Personally i wouldn’t read too much into a) secondary proposals and b) ones that come from known parties.
The general voting outcome is similar to what i have seen in other governance/voting situations. The current decision is not big enough to attract a significant movement from all the parties that are able to vote. It’s previous grantees asking for grants again.
Incentivizing voting at this stage will just lead to all people voting how the majority is voting because they get a share or a voting reward. I’d even say that in most cases its more hurtful than anything, because you’re forcing people into a decision that they do not have the drive to make themselves, so whatever they decide on will not “magically” be thought out now that you give them something in return.
In addition to Ugur’s points, I’d also emphasize that funding grants to those intimately involved with the project with ongoing tasks are likely to be less controversial than new initiatives and thus solicit fewer “against” votes, and secondary proposals’ quora are easier to meet, thus dis-incentivizing unnecessary additional “for” votes so the numbers aren’t too surprising so far.
Delegation is not to be taken lightly, so I do encourage (especially identified, whether individual or pseudo-anon) addresses to have a delegation pitch and disclosure - I’m happy to help with these.
Thanks Ugur and Erich for your answers. Have looked at other governance, is similar there. I have also paid too little attention to the delegation.
I see your points and agree.
Am curious to participation when it comes to subDAO proposal or using the primary agent. Think that the high fees have also kept many away. (which will change in the future)