[DIP v1.5]Delegate Incentive Program Questions and Feedback

[web3citizenxyz]

Cross posting this feedback given on the February results post.

We agree with other delegates’ feedback in that the implementation of voting multiplier in practice disproportionally affects smaller delegates. Taking our case as an example to illustrate this, our VP multiplier 0,8 (since we have about 60K in delegation) is the main reason we did not qualify. If a positive multiplier, like @jameskbh suggested, had been applied (for instance 1-1.2) we would have a multiplier in the lower bound (1) resulting in 70.81 in TP and still qualifying for the program, instead we have a 58.84.

Additionally, we suggest inclusion of more feedback both when responding to dispute and in DIP reports to improve clarity in the scoring and effectively help delegates seeking to improve their participation:

@web3citizenxyz

I would like to suggest the inclusion of how you arrive to your conclusions on the clarity and depth in personal DIP reports. The impact and timing verticals of the rubric are more straightforward, but clarity and depth can be more subjective.

We know this is time consuming, but suggest this given that: the application of the rubric is subjective, those verticals are the most subjective among the DF criteria and that DF significatively impacts overall compensation for smaller delegates who need to offset the VP multiplier penalty. For example, why is our comment in the Audit Program deemed as a 2 (ambiguous or has errors according to the DIP bible). In our case for instance, DF is the main reason we don’t qualify for DIP this month and reading some comments in the delegate group we see this is the case for others too. Your comments around this would improve our participation or at least shed some light around how you’re thinking around it.

For the future, thinking around the subject of applying changes to the DIP, it can also be clearer for delegates if you specify how regularly you may be raising the bar for participation.