LunaNova are in favour of proposal B: Validators vote & Delegators can override. It strikes the right balance between inclusivity and practicality.
We don’t think proposal C makes sense, as if any other stakeholders want to have a say they can obtain tokens and stake them. Proposal B could also be safer than Proposal A from a legal perspective, as no staked tokenholders are disenfranchised.
We don’t think it makes sense to leave it up to individual validators to provide bespoke ways for their delegators to have a say, this will just lead to a load of duplicated effort that would be better spent elsewhere.
Leapfrog voted for Option 2 - Validators vote and token holders can vote to override.
Our main reasoning is to give investors in Solana a real sense of ownership of the chain. And so leading to larger investments.
As we can see few validators take the time to engage with governance but if some of their delegators are interested in a particular proposal they can ensure that their views are represented.
The stakers don’t necessarily know which way their validator will vote on an issue that is important to them so “choosing a validator that aligns with their view” isn’t that simple as one validator won’t align on all their concerns and diversifying stake won’t help here as this will just dilute their vote weight. Where if they can override and have a strong view on an issue that is important to them - they can then align all stake across all validators to vote that way.
Finally - validators (with no real investment but lots of stake) may vote for something that is more in their interest and not in the interest of the system - from my view, kind of like what is happening in this proposal…