# Areta Delegate Thread

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376>\
**Category:** Delegate Statements\
**Tags:** delegation, delegate-statements\
**Created:** [August 15, 2024, 10:05am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376 "2024-08-15T10:05:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Areta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/areta/32/11792_2.png) [@Areta](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Areta)\
**Post date:** [September 11, 2025, 10:08am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376/17 "2025-09-11T10:08:39Z")

</div>

### Proposal: [Revert the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) to Version 1.5](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb1a39a0b7543e03cbb7aca0213448f4fbed4cbf1157fcb1b2458540fb452bc73)

**Type** : Off-chain  
**Vote** : Keep the current version  
**Rationale** : This proposal seeks to roll back changes introduced in the Delegate Incentive Program v1.6 and v1.7. We voted in support for the changes introduced by DIP v1.7 in line with the following rationale:

> [@Chris\_Areta](#):
>
> Our rationale for voting in support and our general thoughts on the proposal are as follows:
> 
> **Introduction of Tier X**
> 
> - We support the introduction of Tier X and the incentivization of voting participation, particularly for larger delegates. This is a welcome development.
> - Recent trends in the DAO highlight the importance of voting participation. Incentivizing holders of significant voting power to exercise it is a logical step. While other forms of governance participation are also valuable to encourage, without sufficient voting engagement (and quorum), much of the effort is ultimately wasted.
> 
> **~40% Reduction**
> 
> - We align with the option to maintain the 40% reduction pending the introduction of a new delegate incentive program, as opposed to the other proposed alternatives. Our reasoning is as follows:
> - Compensation should reflect delegate workload and the DAO’s evolving organizational structure. We’re aligned with reduced compensation, provided delegate responsibilities are also scaled back (which appears to be the ongoing trend).
> - In our view, the proposed ~40% reduction fairly accounts for the decreased delegate responsibilities under the program. Other options (e.g., pausing, or canceling the program) represent overly drastic steps that overlook the continued value delegates provide, particularly in ensuring quorum and DAO oversight.

We acknowledge that DIP v1.7 does not fully resolve every issue with the program design. Still, it introduces important changes that respond to current governance challenges and the evolving role of delegates:

- The compensation reduction in v1.7 reflects the lighter delegate workload.
- The DAO faces a quorum problem. Incentivizing voting activity from delegates with significant voting power is a more effective way to achieve quorum than spreading incentives across a wider group of delegates.
- Reverting to DIP v1.5 would not address the quorum issue, the reduced workload, or other concerns in the program’s design, including the issue of subjective assessments by program managers.
- The Arbitrum Foundation and SEEDGov are collaborating on a DIP 2.0 proposal, expected in the coming weeks, which will introduce major improvements to address current design challenges.
  - This gives delegates a clear opportunity to shape DIP v2.0, and we encourage all delegates to actively participate in the review and voting process to make sure concerns are addressed.

For these reasons, we will be voting to keep the current version of the DIP.

* * *

### Proposal: [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb41324ddcc115d08149b192e0b8ae4cfad0ef39cecb5663ea63d8a460d2cb3cc)

**Type** : Off-chain  
**Vote** :

- Increase cohort duration
- Allow members to rotate keys
- Allow members to bypass Nominee

**Rationale** : This proposal seeks to improve the Security Council election process. Below is our rationale for supporting or abstaining from each proposed change:

- 🟢 **Increase Cohort Duration**

- 🔴 **Reduce Qualification Thresholds**

- 🟢 **Progress Security Council Members**

- 🟢 **Security Council Key Rotation**

* * *

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376)._