I like the idea of having some way for developers to show that they've given an idea legitimate consideration, as I feel some proposals are often considered much more in depth before rejection than the proposer realizes, however I don't think any sort of on-chain system really makes sense. It complicates things a lot, adds code, incentives, etc. when really all you care about is some sort of indication of consideration, support, or rejection.

I also prefer to think of Bitcoin as a system of vetos rather than a system of approvals. A lot of times changes will be small, highly technical, and have no visible impact to your every day user. These types of changes don't really need support outside the devs. Furthermore, I frankly don't give a crap if we proposal has support from 85% of the participants if there is a legitimate technical, social, or political reason that it is a bad idea.

And finally, I don't think it should cost money or political power to raise an objection. A 13yo who has never been seen before should be able to raise an objection if they indeed have a legitimate objection. Involving money is almost certainly going to shut down important valid opinions.

And again, I mostly agree with the motivation. It would be good if it were easier to figure out who had considered a proposal and what their objections or praises were. But I would like to see that without any systemization around what is required to pass or fail a proposal, and with no barrier to entry (such as voting or sending coins or having a recognized name like 'Bitfury') to provide an opinion.