DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)

[KlausBrave]

Voted Against.

None of the critical issues I’ve raised or several other delegates raised were addressed and incorporated in the transition from Snapshot to Tally.

Several delegates stated: I’m voting FOR for now, with a “hope” these things are addressed before Tally, well most points were not addressed, operating on hope is not a plan.

I’m seeing a lack of listening and willingness to detail a unique mechanism, or to include language and mechanism for transparency, DAO involvement or accountability.

This is a troubling trend that the largest delegate and AAE is willing to operate with and descend into these low standards. This is not a healthy trajectory for the DAO.

@KlausBrave

Voted Against.

1. Incentive mechanic inadequately detailed. The claimed novel mechanic to incentivize and retain new users is not detailed, as a delegate we are left with trust us, we’ll work it out along the way and we’ll rely heavily on the distribution partner. The detail on Distribution partners criteria and responsibility is missing, this leaves a huge absence in a reliable plan and frankly not adequate work for an 80m ARB request
   After the amount of pushback, rigour and inquiry that went into the Incentives Detox this is disappointing to not see a more detail strategy and rational for why this time it will be different.
2. Lack of DAO involvement. Lack of formal balanced DAO representation and accountability mechanisms. Soft language is used from a accountability metric perspective, creating a trust assumption that is unverifiable and unfalsifiable “Entropy encourages the whole community to participate in proposing new activities and assets for incentives and is happy to be the primary point of contact for community ideation. There will absolutely be opportunities for community input throughout the DRIP process.” Given this is a big concern mentioned by many delegates more specific language is needed.
3. Missing operational costs. “A portion set aside”. “The DRIP seeks funding of 80M ARB for the first 4 seasons, with a maximum of 20M allocated per season and a portion set aside for operational costs related to vendors utilized by the season selection committee.” For a proposal of this size and from the top AAEs this requires a higher standard, the operational costs need to detailed, at the least an estimate provided.
4. Disjointed proposal. This proposal sits on an island out on its own and doesn’t represent a joined up strategy that fulfills the MVP, nor the SOS or moves Arbitrum towards a digital sovereign nation. My questions regarding this were left unanswered, Entropy pointed to a reply they made to Daniel which was unrelated and didn’t answer the question. The lack of coherently positioning this incentive program’s role in fulfilling the high level objectives of Arbitrum and the DAO leaves delegates with the question what’s the point and will this make any lasting difference.

@KlausBrave

nor how this approach achieves the MVP or moves us towards creating economic zones of opportunity.

It would be good to have this explained more clearly, in particular how could this cost outflow of 80m ARB bring returns back into the treasury? if that’s not the paradigm, how are the AAEs thinking about returns?

Happy to support with these 4 points addressed.