I think you are mixing several topics, so let me clarify.
This post is purely about the cPGF validator subsidy. It is not about relayers, RPCs, indexers, UIs, testnets, or other ecosystem contributions, etc. Maybe you are referring to this thread: RetroPGF for Service Providers - Funding Operations - Namada
Regarding governance, you mention it is “very challenging” due to tooling (e.g., Keplr). Could you clarify what exactly prevents validators from voting? Maybe create a new thread for it.
This is not a new proposal; it’s an idea to iterate on the existing cPGF model, including active participation, uptime, and real operating costs, and to ensure that subsidies do not reward inactive or jailed validators.
If you disagree with specific thresholds (uptime, voting %, etc.), let’s discuss those directly.