Thank you for this thoughtful proposal. We strongly support the direction of creating a more objective incentive program, which addresses several key challenges with the current model. The goal of moving towards a peer-driven system is one we fully align with.
That said, there’s one aspect that we believe could be refined further. Our primary feedback centers on the mechanics of the "Second Dip”. While we support the peer-voting model over centralized committees, a key challenge will be the “apples-to-oranges” comparison of diverse, self-reported contributions (e.g., forum delegate feedback vs. research reports vs. leading initiatives). This ambiguity could reintroduce the subjectivity the program aims to reduce.
We believe the system’s objectivity could be significantly improved by creating distinct evaluation tracks for different types of contributions. We propose considering a split of the “Second Dip” into two specialized pools:
- High-Impact Projects (Contributions): For discrete, significant work like authoring proposals, leading working groups, or other extraordinary contributions which would use the proposed self-reporting and peer-voting model.
- Quality Forum Contributions (Delegate Feedback): A dedicated pool to properly and scalably incentivize the deep research, nuanced feedback, and constructive debate that are vital to the DAO’s health.
To complement this approach, we’ve been working on a data-driven evaluation system, the forum Peer Recognition Score (PRS), which aim to introduces a peer-weighted way to measure contribution quality without relying on centralized evaluators. We believe this kind of mechanism could strengthen the second layer of the program by rewarding genuine impact in a transparent, community-validated way. We think that by adopting a specialized, dual-track structure like this would allow the peer vote to focus solely on comparing major contribution that is distinct to delegate feedbacks on the forum, making the entire evaluation more focused and objective.
We’re sharing this as a constructive addition to the discussion. This is an early-stage idea, and we would value hearing how others think about this approach. Our hope is to help shape an incentive program that effectively balances fairness, objectivity, and genuine participation.