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.
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.
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.
Thank you for your feedback, but I don’t quite agree with it.
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.
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.
25% of voting participation is a small threshold that any delegate can overcome in a couple of months.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hey @SEEDGov! I have the same question like EzR3aL. I actually have posted my all voting reasons.
Could you please tell me why I posted my voting reasons for all proposals and attached them to the snapshot and tally, but my CR never got full scores? Will you review these reasons and consider whether they are reasonable before deciding whether they can be included in CR?
Or I missed something to complete?
Thanks!
I can easily explain it to you: Karma does not count these indicators instantly. It often happens that the count goes up to the 6th or 7th.
If you see - almost everyone is in this situation now
We take some time to double-check the data and ensure it is correct. That’s why indexing comments can take some time. When complete, we make a forum post with the results
Remember that once the monthly results are published you can always raise a dispute.
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:
Thanks! By the way, is it okay to edit our rationale posts? I made some edits to add more detail, but I’m not sure how that affects points or integrity.
Will governance call attendance be automatically counted or do we have to report attendance somewhere? And if we have to report, how would you like to show proof of attendance?
Can somebody tell me: what it means * Delegates’ Feedback (DF): The weight of this parameter has increased from 15% to 30%. Where I can leave Delegates’ Feedback?
Does someone else have the problem that he/she is not able to see where CR is missing?
Months before I could check it and see if I really missed to communicate or if it was an error. Now I cannot click the CR anymore and verfiy.
This is the status quo.
I am not able to verify if the data shown is correct or not. Also checked If i can still see previous months, but its also missing now.
And as I am pretty sure 8/17 is wrong, im not able to check.
