Hi Arlai, we already discuss about this so I will try to resume 
about your proposal,
I totally agree about the fact that wallets of liquid staking and team delegation should be removed from the equation,
You want to separate the consensus power (security) and governance power (politics), It will take a lot of time to generate a real separation of the 2 powers.
At least at the beginning, most of the validators will opt-in as governors, because we are looking for recognition, politics in an influence game and we have to take care about how this politic is made.
Governors will not have to run hardware and are not mandatory involved in technics to evaluate the smart-contracts or code upgrades. they will must be in team with multiple talents to cover all the aspects of the role.
You propose to make the change in 2 time, with a first step keeping the validator power in case no governors vote. I think if this kind of modification have to be made, it should be made in 1 time.
Now my personal opinion,
Create 2 different kind of staking,
-
staking for security (consensus) where you receive rewards from the inflation like it’s done right now, this doesn’t change anything
-
staking for politics (governance) where you give you power to express you opinion. In this model, the incentive are still to be found, but the governor remuneration could be taken on the gov proposal deposit.
The 2 staking will be separated, if the remuneration is taken on the proposal deposit, the “governor set” is self-limited and proposals will need to gather enough support to be pushed in voting period, the deposit does not return.
Another aspect we discuss together was about the UI on the dashboards (mintcan, keplr, ping…)
the problem is often the proposal presentation already display a tally, this have an influence effect to people who are voting “like the majority”
Maybe the tally should be hidden before the end of the vote