Speaking of delegates, the community should:
1. Have a central location where delegates should report what they are doing to add value to the system.
2. Set minimum expectations of how often delegates should update the community.
The most annoying aspect of DPoS was getting updates. As a community, we should not have to track down updates. It should be the delegate's responsibilty to communicate.
but this is not something you can enforce.
Now if you got a group of people together who will only vote for people who participate in your system it would be good at convincing some to join up.
I recommend the Lisk community really taking time to study how the dynamic worked in Bitshares. When delegates refused to update the community on what they were doing, voters would put pressure on them to either show value or get voted out. For the most part, it worked as intended. Nobody rides for free.
I'm not talking about some type of central code nonsense, just a recommendation to the community to set standards and vote accordingly. I went through about about 2 years of their threads on DPoS. Lot of lessons learned, it is in our best interest in the Lisk community to learn what went right and wrong and apply the best practices.
I'm not a DPoS expert, however, from everything I read here, there's still a LOT of misunderstanding. The OMG eyez will be rich by running a delegate is missing the point. If delegate pay is high enough, it will allow those delegates to hire workers to help build the ecosystem.
I'm not saying it's not a sensible thing to do. If someone thinks it's a great idea then I think they should step up and try to get something organized. If you know you have the skills to get it going and it seems reasonable then I don't mind following it.
But It's also worries me that it gives the person setting the rules a lot of authority. Who gets to decide who makes the rules and at what point does that just turn into a centralized system?