How to Design a Delegation Framework for Moderation Voting Power

Delegation is a core mechanism in token-based governance, enabling a shift from direct democracy to a representative model. In the context of moderation—such as content flagging, proposal curation, or dispute resolution—it allows users who lack the time or expertise to participate directly to delegate their voting power to others. This system, used by protocols like Compound and Uniswap, ensures that governance participation is not limited to a small group of highly active users. It creates a liquid market for influence where reputation and alignment with community values are key.

Designing an effective framework starts with defining the delegation contract. A basic Solidity implementation involves a mapping from delegators to delegates and a function to update it. The contract must also adjust vote weights in real-time. Critical considerations include: allowing self-delegation, enabling partial delegation (splitting votes), and implementing a cool-down period to prevent delegation sniping or flash loan attacks. The contract's state should be efficiently queryable by the moderation voting module.

The security model is paramount. A naive implementation can be exploited; for instance, a delegate could vote, then have their power revoked by the delegator, but the vote may still be counted. To prevent this, systems often use a snapshot of delegation balances taken at the start of a voting period, as seen in OpenZeppelin's Governor contracts. Furthermore, consider implementing vote delegation with parameters, where a delegator can restrict their delegate's power to specific proposal types or tags, adding a layer of control for sensitive moderation actions.

Beyond the smart contract, the social layer dictates success. Communities need clear tools for discovering and evaluating delegates: delegate statements, historical voting records, and alignment scores. Platforms like Tally and Boardroom provide these interfaces. Effective frameworks often incorporate incentives for delegates, such as a small share of protocol fees or reputation-based rewards, to ensure active and responsible participation. Without incentives, the system risks apathy and centralization of power among a few default delegates.

Finally, measure and iterate. Key metrics include delegation turnout (percentage of circulating supply delegated), delegate concentration (Gini coefficient), and vote execution rate. A healthy system has a wide distribution of trusted delegates with specialized focuses. Regular governance proposals should be used to adjust parameters like delegation cool-down periods or incentive structures, ensuring the framework evolves with the community's needs for fair and effective moderation.

A delegation framework for moderation is a smart contract system that allows token holders to lend their voting weight to trusted delegates. This is common in DAOs like Compound or Uniswap, but applied specifically to content curation. The core components are a voting token (e.g., an ERC-20 or ERC-721), a registry to track delegation relationships, and a separate module that consumes this delegated power to vote on proposals. You must decide if delegation is transitive (delegates can further delegate) or direct, and whether it can be revoked at any time or is locked for an epoch.

You need a clear data model. At minimum, your smart contracts must track a mapping from each delegator to their chosen delegate. A common pattern is to use a delegates mapping: mapping(address => address) public delegates. When a user delegates, you update this mapping and typically emit an event like DelegateChanged. For vote tallying, the system must calculate the voting power of a delegate by summing the balances of all accounts that point to them. This requires iterating through delegators, which can be gas-intensive, so consider using snapshots or checkpointing libraries like OpenZeppelin's ERC20Votes.

Security and incentive design are critical. Without safeguards, a malicious delegate could misuse power to censor content unfairly. Implement a timelock on delegation changes to prevent last-minute manipulation before a vote. Consider a slashing mechanism where delegates who vote against the community's clear sentiment (measured via a separate meta-governance vote) lose a portion of their delegated stake. Also, design for voter apathy; most users will not delegate without a clear reward. Potential solutions include sharing protocol revenue with active, honest delegates or implementing a reputation system that increases a delegate's influence over time.

Finally, you must integrate this delegation system with your moderation engine. The moderation contract, which executes actions like hiding a post or banning a user, should have a function castVote(uint proposalId, bool support) that only accepts calls from an address with sufficient delegated voting power. It should query the delegation contract to get the caller's voting power at the specific block number when the proposal was created. Use OpenZeppelin's governance contracts as a reference, but adapt the _getVotes logic to fit your custom delegation registry. Thorough testing with frameworks like Foundry or Hardhat is essential to simulate delegation attacks and edge cases before deployment.

A delegation framework separates the right to vote from the act of voting. Users (delegators) can assign their voting power to other trusted users (delegates) who vote on their behalf. This is critical for moderation systems where active participation is low but the need for high-quality, timely decisions is paramount. The core components are the delegation registry (a smart contract mapping delegator to delegate), a vote aggregation mechanism (summing a delegate's own power with their received delegations), and clear rules for delegation lifecycle (how to delegate, undelegate, or change delegate).

Designing the delegation logic requires careful consideration of state management. A common pattern uses a mapping like mapping(address => address) public delegateOf; to track relationships. When a user delegates, their voting power is effectively transferred to the delegate's tally for the duration of the delegation. It's crucial that the system prevents self-delegation loops and ensures delegated power cannot be double-counted. The aggregation function must traverse delegation chains correctly, though for gas efficiency and simplicity, most systems implement a single-hop model where power flows directly from delegator to delegate, not through intermediate proxies.

Security and incentive alignment are paramount. The system must protect delegators from malicious delegates who might vote against their interests. Implementing a time-lock or cooldown period on undelegation prevents delegates from borrowing power for a single vote and immediately losing it. Consider incorporating delegate profiles or reputation scores on-chain to help delegators make informed choices. Furthermore, the framework should allow for partial delegation, where a user delegates only a percentage of their voting power, retaining some for direct use. This is often more complex to implement but offers greater flexibility and risk management for participants.

Integrate the delegation framework with your voting contract. The voting function must query the delegation registry to calculate a voter's effective power. A typical pattern is: function getVotingPower(address user) public view returns (uint256) { address delegate = delegateOf[user]; if(delegate == address(0)) return balanceOf(user); else return 0; }. The delegate's voting function would then sum their native power (balanceOf(delegate)) with the power of all their delegators. Events like DelegateChanged and DelegateVotesChanged (inspired by OpenZeppelin's ERC20Votes) should be emitted for off-chain tracking and UI updates.

Finally, consider governance parameters specific to moderation. Unlike financial governance, moderation votes may need faster cycles. You might implement topic-specific delegation, allowing a user to delegate their power for "spam" votes to one expert and "harassment" votes to another. The contract should also handle the slashing or freezing of a delegate's power if they are found to be acting maliciously, protecting the ecosystem. Always test the delegation logic extensively with scenarios involving multiple delegators, undelegation during active votes, and edge cases to ensure the system's robustness and fairness.

A delegation framework is a core component of decentralized governance, allowing token holders to transfer their voting power to another address without transferring the underlying tokens. This is essential for moderation systems where active participation is required but not all users have the time or expertise. The design centers on a mapping structure, typically mapping(address => address) public delegates, which tracks which address is voting on behalf of another. When a user delegates, their voting weight is added to their delegate's total, and any subsequent votes cast by the delegate automatically include this weight. This mechanism is used by major protocols like Compound's Governor Bravo and Uniswap's governance to scale participation.

The smart contract must manage the state of delegated votes accurately. A common pattern involves tracking a user's vote weight at the time of delegation using a checkpoint system, similar to ERC-20Votes or ERC-1155. This prevents double-voting and ensures historical accuracy. When a user delegates to address(0), they are revoking delegation and reclaiming their direct voting power. The contract logic must also handle the transfer of tokens: if a user transfers tokens to a new holder, the delegation from the old balance should be cleared, and the new holder must explicitly delegate again. This prevents vote weight from being unintentionally inherited.

For moderation-specific voting, such as approving or rejecting content proposals, the delegation contract must integrate with a separate voting module. The sequence is: 1) Token holders delegate power, 2) A moderation proposal is created, 3) Delegates cast votes using their aggregated weight, 4) Votes are tallied. The contract should emit events like DelegateChanged and DelegateVotesChanged for off-chain indexing. Security considerations are paramount: the system must be immune to flash loan attacks where borrowed tokens are used to manipulate delegation snapshots. Using a time-weighted average balance or enforcing a delegation cooldown period can mitigate this.

Here is a simplified core function for delegation in Solidity:

solidityCopy
function delegate(address delegatee) external {
    address currentDelegate = delegates[msg.sender];
    uint256 senderBalance = balanceOf(msg.sender);
    delegates[msg.sender] = delegatee;
    emit DelegateChanged(msg.sender, currentDelegate, delegatee);
    _moveDelegates(currentDelegate, delegatee, senderBalance);
}
function _moveDelegates(address src, address dst, uint256 amount) internal {
    if (src != dst && amount > 0) {
        if (src != address(0)) {
            uint256 srcOld = delegateVotes[src];
            delegateVotes[src] = srcOld - amount;
        }
        if (dst != address(0)) {
            uint256 dstOld = delegateVotes[dst];
            delegateVotes[dst] = dstOld + amount;
        }
    }
}

This logic updates the internal accounting of voting power when delegation changes.

To implement a complete system, you must also manage vote delegation for specific proposals. Some frameworks allow for per-proposal delegation, where a user can delegate their voting power for a single proposal to a different expert. This requires storing delegation state per proposal ID, increasing gas costs but offering greater flexibility. The contract should include view functions to query a delegate's total voting power at a given block number, which is crucial for transparent vote tallying. Always audit the integration between the token, delegation, and voting contracts to ensure no discrepancies in vote weight calculations, as seen in historical governance exploits.

Best practices for deployment include using established libraries like OpenZeppelin's Votes.sol for checkpoint logic, conducting thorough testing with forked mainnet state, and implementing a timelock for critical governance upgrades. A well-designed delegation framework reduces voter apathy, enables expert-driven moderation, and creates a more resilient and participatory on-chain community. For further reading, review the source code for Compound Governor and the ERC-5805 draft standard for advanced delegation patterns.

A delegation framework is a core governance primitive that addresses voter apathy and expertise gaps. Instead of requiring every token holder to vote on every proposal, the system allows users to delegate their voting power to a delegate—a trusted individual or entity. This delegate then casts votes on their behalf, aggregating influence. For moderation decisions, this concentrates voting power with community members who are most active and knowledgeable about content policies, leading to more consistent and well-reasoned outcomes. The framework is typically implemented using a delegation registry smart contract that maps delegator addresses to delegate addresses.

The smart contract design must track delegation state and calculate vote weight. A basic Solidity structure involves a mapping: mapping(address => address) public delegates;. When a user delegates, their address points to their chosen delegate's address. To calculate a delegate's total voting power for a proposal, the contract must sum the balance of every delegator who points to them. This can be gas-intensive if done on-chain in real-time. Optimizations include using snapshot mechanisms (like Snapshot) that record balances at a specific block number, or checkpointed voting power systems that update totals only when delegation changes.

Key design considerations include the delegation model's flexibility. Permanent delegation locks power until explicitly revoked, while temporary delegation or vote-by-vote delegation offers more control. For moderation, temporary delegation may be preferable, as trust in a delegate's judgment on one topic (e.g., technical upgrades) may not extend to content moderation. The contract should also handle self-delegation (users voting for themselves) and prevent circular delegation loops. Events like DelegateChanged and DelegateVotesChanged should be emitted for off-chain indexing and front-end updates.

Integrating delegation with a voting mechanism, such as OpenZeppelin's Governor, is a common pattern. The Governor contract uses a IVotes token interface. Your token contract must implement functions like getVotes(address account, uint256 blockNumber) to return the delegate's aggregated voting power at a past block. When a moderation proposal is created, the system calls this function to determine each delegate's voting weight. The execution of a successful proposal—such as banning a user or removing content—is then handled by a separate timelock executor or a multisig wallet authorized by the governance contract.

Security and incentive alignment are critical. To prevent delegate apathy, some protocols implement bonding curves or reputation systems that reward active participation. A slashing mechanism for malicious delegates is complex but can be simulated by allowing delegators to quickly revoke power. For transparency, all delegation actions and votes should be permanently recorded on-chain. When designing for a real community, start with a simple, audited delegate registry and a snapshot-based voting system before moving to more complex on-chain execution.

You now have the architectural blueprint for a delegation framework. The key components are the delegation registry (a mapping of delegator to delegatee), a vote tallying mechanism that aggregates delegated voting power, and safety features like delegation caps and cooldown periods. Implementing this requires careful smart contract development, typically using a pattern where a user's voting weight is calculated as their own stake plus the sum of all stakes delegated to them, minus any stakes they have delegated away. Always use established libraries like OpenZeppelin's for access control and security.

Before deploying to a mainnet, rigorous testing is essential. Use a framework like Foundry or Hardhat to simulate governance scenarios: - A delegate voting on behalf of multiple delegators - The impact of a delegator revoking power mid-vote - Sybil attack attempts by splitting stake across many addresses - Edge cases in the vote tallying logic. Consider deploying first to a testnet and running a mock governance proposal to observe the system's behavior under realistic conditions. Tools like Tenderly can help visualize and debug complex state changes.

The final step is planning for the framework's evolution. No initial design is perfect. Establish clear processes for protocol upgrades to modify delegation parameters or logic. Consider implementing a delegate reputation system to surface high-quality participants, potentially using on-chain metrics like voting history and proposal creation. For further learning, study live implementations such as OpenZeppelin Governor with optional delegation, Compound's COMP token delegation, or Uniswap's governance portal. The goal is to create a system that is not only functional at launch but can adapt to the growing needs of your decentralized community.