Leave your questions or comments about the delegate incentive program in this thread.
Do we have a snapshot date for the eligible delegates (for those with >50k ARB)?
We estimate that the program will start in March, applicants can apply at any time, we don’t just take an initial snapshot. For example let’s say you get >50k ARB and you apply on March 20th, we will start counting your actions in April (this to avoid gamification) if in April you fulfill the tasks requested in the program and you are among the top 50 +60% TP delegates you will receive incentives for the month of April and for the following months as long as you are among the top 50 delegates.
This is a high level explanation, we will explain it in detail so that everyone understands that at any time you can join the program and within what range your actions are counted.
When will the results of the first set of 50 active delegates be summarized?
You will have the Karma dashboard to keep track (still under development). And additionally we will present monthly reports with the 50 top delegates and also with the best things that can be done to the program. Our idea is to publish it within the first 10 days as long as there are no inconveniences or delays.
Just requesting further clarification on behalf of Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council.
In your application thread you mention listing the following requirements:
Snapshot and Tally profiles are straightforward to provide. However, the ARC is comprised of 8 members who provide feedback on the Arbitrum forum under their personal accounts. Should all of these individual’s forum username and twitter profile be provided, or just the @TreasureDAO for handle and Treasure Governance twitter account.
In connection with the previous point, since most of the ARC’s actions are carried out through the personal forum accounts of ARC members, can we assume that their actions will contribute to Treasure’s Delegate Incentive Program score, rather than solely activity originating from Treasure’s DAOs organization account?
I think they can do something similar to the Uniswap delegation. No need for everyone to provide their twitter but indicate which are the 8 accounts on the forum that represent TraseureDAO.
You can see the table here
To help with the initial follow up, how about creating a delegate thread or clarifying in the comments that you represent treasureDAO? These are just some ideas, we will talk to Karma about this and I will come back with a clearer answer.
Hi @SEEDGov, thanks for the clarification.
I have now completed the application, listing all the information including each of Treasure ARC member’s forum accounts. You can view this here.
Our delegate communication thread can be found here. This list the forum handles of all Treasure ARC members. It is worth noting our delegate voting decision is now primarily communicated on the relevant proposal discussion, not in our ARC Delegate thread. We felt this allowed for better continuity for the community when looking to read up on the outcome and rational of any given proposal.
Het @GFXlabs, let’s continue in this thread to maintain order
Yes, we have contemplated and clarified it here. I think Karma does the calculation automatically, I will check.
Is there expectations for delegates who act as one person to create delegate threads? Would it make it easier?
Also, for a vote like the ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas” currently running on Snapshot. What is the expectation for commentary to satisfy the commenting / communicating criteria? I 100% understand (and agree) we aren’t trying to create a guideline or ideal response to avoid gamification, but I also am not sure how something like this can really play out when it is so technical. As a layperson, I’m not really sure what I can add to a conversation like this besides commenting as such as a formality. I’d imagine a large portion of delegates are in my shoes with this one.
Hi, it is not obligatory, but we recommend it as a good practice, as it makes it easier to follow the decisions of each delegate. The most important thing we believe is the feedback on the proposals and also the rational of each delegate (it does not necessarily have to be a thread).
It is valid to point out that we need to find a balance in this aspect. We understand that technical proposals may be more complex to comment on, and we do not want the process to become mere formalism or spam. However, we believe that it may be worthwhile to comment on certain technical proposals, which are simpler to understand.
In addition, we believe that if a delegate maintains his or her vote consisting of snapshots and tally, it is not necessary to justify every vote, unless he or she wishes to clarify something. However, should you change your vote, we expect you to provide justification.
We will reflect on the concerns you have raised and work on developing more specific guidelines.
It is valid to point out that we need to find a balance in this aspect. We understand that technical proposals may be more complex to comment on, and we do not want the process to become mere formalism or spam. However, we believe that it may be worthwhile to comment on certain technical proposals , which are simpler to understand.
I think that is fair. Where multisig signers and conceptual things like that are easier to understand and delegates should have input on them. Not sure if the bright line here is when actual coding is brought into the mix. But appreciate the willingness to think on it, as I really just want to bring it up as a discussion piece.
Yes, at the beginning we don’t want to have a lot of rules, we want some things to emerge naturally. We know the program is not perfect, but these instances help to improve it and raise issues that we didn’t see when the proposal was made. In every test we do we discover something new, we hope to improve the program at every step.
Personally, I think it’s a very good way to go, but it might be better if a closer online communication could be formed
@duokongcrypto What do you mean??..
Correct me if I’m wrong, though I think it’s acceptable to abstain in the case of technical proposals where the delegate lack the technical skills to vote for or against a proposal way above his “pay-grade”.
We do not evaluate how the delegate votes, we only evaluate whether or not he/she votes and if he/she makes valuable or reflective comments.
@ruslanklinkov sorry for the delay in responding. I think this answers your question
We have created a guide that I believe answers several questions:
If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to ask us.
please, could you explain this parameters?
Communicating Rationale (CR) - Weight 25
Commenting Proposals (CP) - Weight 15
I has 0 in CR and 5 in CP.
How it works? I commented much in December in forum for every Proposal.
CR is the communication of your final decision, you can see more details here:
Please let us know if there are any errors. We are rechecking your profile