@Spidomo Great question and something I didn’t even think about when considering another post with suggested changes to the delegate process so we could consider fair compensation for delegates.
I am going to have to think about your question a bit and probably do some research before coming back with an answer.
I do think if delegates have sufficient MKR to pass an executive they basically have the power to alter their own pay structures. This becomes a potential conflict of interest. I think it is a thorny area honestly.
You will see another post which recommends changes to the delegate process. One of my biggest cocnerns around any discussion of formalizing delegate statuses enough to compensate them is that delegates self - elect. There is no formal election process, and no formal positions. There is also no maximum MKR a delegate can accumulate. It is true one person with many wallets could accumulate enough MKR to effectively ‘rule MKR’ the question is whether we should allow via delegation such an accumulation to occur.
I think this post, with probably the delegation poll, and my own post suggesting that Maker have formal elected delegate positions should cause sufficient concern to pause a bit and rethink what delegation means both from conflicts of interest standpoints, accumulation of MKR voting power and the governance system in general.
One of the biggest issues here is that MKR votes like stock votes and since there is no way to connect a person to wallet, we could have players with sufficient MKR that basically don’t vote because they have sufficient power to rule. This may be one of the sole reasons our MKR whales don’t vote and also exhibits a significant unsolvable problem to governance. How does a system which is dominated by non-voting whales effective secure such a system with some small fraction of the total remaining vote?