Projects related to blockchain often attempt to decentralize governance. In the governance of blockchain projects, 'governance tokens' are often introduced to facilitate smooth consensus formation for the maintenance of the protocol. In particular, delegation mechanisms are introduced to secure the governance system. However, if the person to whom authority is delegated becomes unable to participate in governance, securing the governance system becomes challenging. In this article, I propose MultiDelegate as a mitigation measure.

Voting with governance tokens that lack a delegation mechanism takes place as follows:

• Token holders gain voting power proportional to the number of tokens they hold at a specific snapshot in time.

• Token holders vote within a designated period and receive the results afterward.

However, this has a significant drawback: those who own a large number of tokens can easily sway the voting results, thereby reducing the incentive for those with fewer tokens to vote. A decrease in voter participation leads to a lower proportion of tokens being used for voting. This reduction makes it easier for attackers to influence voting results, and it challenges the legitimacy of the vote.

The mechanism to mitigate this issue is delegation. In other words, token holders delegate their voting power to trusted community members. Those who only hold a small amount of tokens don't need to read through proposals and vote; they delegate to "knowledgeable people they trust" who will exercise their voting power on their behalf.

Delegation is an excellent solution to the problem of low participation rates in voting. However, if a person who has been delegated a large number of tokens becomes unable to participate in governance, the same problem re-emerges.

Projects related to blockchain often attempt to decentralize governance. In the governance of blockchain projects, 'governance tokens' are often introduced to facilitate smooth consensus formation for the maintenance of the protocol. In particular, delegation mechanisms are introduced to secure the governance system. However, if the person to whom authority is delegated becomes unable to participate in governance, securing the governance system becomes challenging. In this article, I propose MultiDelegate as a mitigation measure.

Voting with governance tokens that lack a delegation mechanism takes place as follows:

• Token holders gain voting power proportional to the number of tokens they hold at a specific snapshot in time.

• Token holders vote within a designated period and receive the results afterward.

However, this has a significant drawback: those who own a large number of tokens can easily sway the voting results, thereby reducing the incentive for those with fewer tokens to vote. A decrease in voter participation leads to a lower proportion of tokens being used for voting. This reduction makes it easier for attackers to influence voting results, and it challenges the legitimacy of the vote.

The mechanism to mitigate this issue is delegation. In other words, token holders delegate their voting power to trusted community members. Those who only hold a small amount of tokens don't need to read through proposals and vote; they delegate to "knowledgeable people they trust" who will exercise their voting power on their behalf.

Delegation is an excellent solution to the problem of low participation rates in voting. However, if a person who has been delegated a large number of tokens becomes unable to participate in governance, the same problem re-emerges.