Thanks for posting @ken! It's a great idea and worth exploring the legal implications of acting as a delegate/voter (See Ooki/CFTC, etc.).
IMO, if ATX DAO is to participate as a delegate, it should be done as part of an explicit program run with clear governing principles and structure to ensure both quality and accountability. If successful, the ATX DAO brand could benefit dramatically from the increased visibility as a delegate. The delegation program members would likewise benefit from direct involvement with whichever DAOs the DAO decides to engage.
At the same time, the role of a good delegate is quite involved and requires consistent engagement with the community, reliable participation, and should represent the views of the DAO consistently as the delegate account would presumably use the DAO's name.
If there's interest from the DAO, I'm happy to help brainstorm the structure or provide feedback! From an operations perspective, a well-defined council of people should be accountable for overseeing the program and upholding the DAO's status as a mature delegate. I also think some process (it doesn't need to be Snapshot) should ensure that DAO members have a right to express their opinions on whichever votes the council participates in. (A Discord Channel could be a good start here)
I would support Optimism as the first DAO to join as it has a relatively rich delegate ecosystem, has significant VCs willing to delegate to community organizations (404 DAO landed a16z as a delegator through this program), and has recently adapted its governance in a way that should limit the number of votes. (Grants funding has most recently been conducted through Councils and RPGF instead of DAO-wide voting).
