Delegate Incentive Program Questions and Feedback

[EzR3aL]

I would like to add a comment here.
There will soon be the re delegation week which you could use to present yourself in order to get delegations.
Me personally I don’t think it’s the right way to ask for delegations from the Arbitrum foundation just to receive the monthly rewards.
If someone wants to be a delegate it is their job to do “marketing” for themselves. If no one is delegating to you it’s either because you are too new and nobody knows about you or you just don’t represent what people would like to see when they choose who they delegate their token to.
Looking at your profile you aren’t even 1 month old, so I would suggest to reach out to holder in public, use the Re delegation week and work hard to get those delegations.
If anybody could come here and get 50k token from the foundation there is no benefit and real incentive to work hard as a delegate.

And to answer your question about the program, just recently there was a thread created to continue that program. So it will likely at least be active till end of year.

[cp0x]

The part of answer for your question is my proposal about continuation of this program

Delegate Incentive Program Extension

Proposal: Delegate Incentive Program Extension Abstract August is the last month of the Delegate Incentive Program. Despite the fact that it is too early to draw conclusions, I would like to suggest in advance that this program be continued with the current budget. Motivation 1,580,000 ARB were allocated for this program. At the moment, there are 1,224,000 ARB left there. Taking into account payments for 3 months, the cost of incentives for delegates amounts to 120,000 ARB per month on avera…

[Ignas]

Hello everyone,

I’m excited to see Arbitrum focusing on building a more decentralized and robust DAO through its incentive program, but I believe this program misses the mark.

The mission’s goal should be to attract new delegates, yet the current program merely rewards the already active DAO delegates

With the criteria set at 50k ARB (which isn’t much), only 175 delegates can qualify for the incentive program. Furthermore, it requires a historical participation rate of over 25%.

This criterion excludes new potential delegates like me from joining the incentive program. As a result, the program fails to decentralize the DAO and only rewards past participants.

I hope to see the DAO’s efforts become more inclusive in the future.

[axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth]

@Ignas

The mission’s goal should be to attract new delegates, yet the current program merely rewards the already active DAO delegates

The goal of the program is the following:

@SEEDGov

We would like to mention that from our perspective the Delegate Incentive System (DIS) focuses on improving participation in governance more qualitatively than quantitatively. This means that in the first instance, one of the main goals of the program is to professionalize delegates so they can keep focusing on building for ArbitrumDAO.

We believe that other systems can be developed which are better suited to attract new delegates and will complement this in the future. Note that not all of the 175 are active delegates. We believe that professionalizing delegates makes the DAO more resistant to governance attacks.

[cp0x]

Thank you for your feedback, but I don’t quite agree with it.

1. 50k ARB is currently only about $25k. Considering that a delegate can theoretically receive 5,000 x 6 = 30,000 for their work over six months of the program. In terms of investment, this is an excellent approach.
2. 175 delegates are currently eligible, indeed, but they constitute the majority when voting. If the threshold is significantly lowered, then servicing such a program will cost significant funds, which will go towards servicing, not incentives - there should be a golden mean in everything.
3. 25% of voting participation is a small threshold that any delegate can overcome in a couple of months.
4. I would be grateful if you suggest how to attract new delegates. I am almost certain that a significant reduction in thresholds will only attract sybils.

[Blueweb]

@cp0x

I would be grateful if you suggest how to attract new delegates. I am almost certain that a significant reduction in thresholds will only attract sybils.

I agree with the last point, 25% historical participation also guards from Sybil attacks.

[EzR3aL]

I have this problem since beginning.

As you can see in the picture the CR is only 6/7 although I have commented on every proposal besides those 2 non-constitutional.
Which one am i missing? Looking at other delegates they have those 2 proposal too and still got 100% CR.

[Mehdi_eth]

Gm @SEEDGov
would you please tell me why My Rationales have not been indexed like other delegates? and Why I have been given 0 Points although I provided My Rationale?

and why I Cant add my rationale here?

[cp0x]

About August results:
Can you tell me what exactly I didn’t comment on?

I don’t remember missing any discussion

[SEEDGov]

Hey cp0x! As stated in the proposal:

Dispute

Delegates have a 2-day window to dispute if they disagree with the results presented by the Incentive System Administrator.

To raise a dispute, they must do so via a forum post with the following template:

• Title: Dispute
• Username
• Reason for dispute (be detailed)

Also, don’t forget to publish your dispute in the Forum Post with the corresponding monthly results.

• Commenting Proposal (CP) - Weight 15: Percentage of proposals where the delegate asked questions or generated important discussion for the advancement of the proposal. This parameter is reset at the beginning of each month.
  • Tn: Total number of formal proposals posted on the forum.
  • Rn: Number of actual proposals where the delegate made a genuine and quality contribution. Spam messages will not be considered.
  • CP% formula: (CP(Rn) / CP(Tn)) * 15

As stated in our public calculations, Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) Council Voting is the one which has not a high impact comment.