# Ambassador Program Governance - feedback request

**URL:** <https://forum.autonomys.xyz/t/ambassador-program-governance-feedback-request/1909>\
**Category:** Ambassadors\
**Created:** [September 26, 2023, 1:28am UTC](https://forum.autonomys.xyz/t/ambassador-program-governance-feedback-request/1909 "2023-09-26T01:28:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 26

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wilyam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@wilyam](https://forum.autonomys.xyz/u/wilyam)\
**Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 9:31am UTC](https://forum.autonomys.xyz/t/ambassador-program-governance-feedback-request/1909/26 "2023-10-03T09:31:28Z")

</div>

That’s it. I believe that the quality is the higher the more evaluators there are.  
But  
… you’re saying that a Subspace Labs or Subspace Founders team evaluation will have more weight? ) I guess so. It reminds me of PoS, but in a good sense, where the one who has more voting power is the one having more resources, in this case - knowledge.

> **So, we could complicate our automatic scoring mechanism**
>
> So, we could complicate our automatic scoring mechanism a bit more by taking into account the weight of the voter (evaluator), who gets this weight as a result of his progress on the basis of general opinion, over time. Accordingly, Subspace Labs, for example, will have the highest weight here, although some of the ambassadors can also gain significant values.

EDITED: later i decided to not implement “voting weight”, please see my [article](https://forum.autonomys.xyz/t/economic-management-system-work-and-payment-organization-model-ambassadors-ecosystem/1949/6)

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.autonomys.xyz/t/ambassador-program-governance-feedback-request/1909)._