On-Chain Governance: Should Delegators Make Their Own Votes?

Hey guys, I'm working on a project using the Cosmos SDK and I've come to a point where I really need to make a decision about governance. I’d appreciate any thoughts from this community before I make it final. THE ISSUE AT HAND Typical Cosmos governance gives a lot of power to validators. Delegators can technically vote too, but most of them don’t actually do it, so validators end up representing everyone. That’s kind of a centralization risk pretending to be decentralization. I’m aiming for something that resembles real on-chain democracy, where every staked token counts as a genuine voice and not just a stand-in. MY IDEA: VALIDATING GROUPS Instead of the usual “validators first, delegators follow” approach, I’m considering this: 1. Anyone can start a Validating Group, no need to have the whole minimum stake upfront. 2. The group then opens up for contributions, allowing others to join and stake together until they reach the minimum required. 3. Once they hit that threshold, the group becomes active as a validator. 4. For governance proposals, the group votes among themselves first, with each member’s vote based on their stake. 5. The result of that internal voting (YES/NO) is then automatically submitted to the chain as the group's official vote. The big change here is that validators won’t be able to override the delegators. Everyone in the group gets a say, based on how much they contribute. WHAT I’M CONSIDERING Validator influence: Standard: High / My model: Gone Delegator participation: Standard: Optional and passive / My model: Active and weighted Entry barrier: Standard: High (full stake) / My model: Low (pooled) Complexity: Standard: Lower / My model: Higher