[DIP v1.5] Delegate Incentive Program Results (December 2024)

DAO Programs & Initiatives Delegate Incentives Program (DIP)
1

We proudly announce the initial outcomes of the second month of the Delegate Incentive Program v1.5. We can now share results with the Arbitrum ecosystem.

December Participants

For the December iteration of the program, 75 participants enrolled, 67 of whom met the requirements to qualify.

You can see the full list here.

image
image873×607 100 KB

Parameters Breakdown

Snapshot Voting

During the month, there were a total of 11 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in December were counted. These are the proposals that were considered:

  1. [Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum?
  2. Designing and operating the reporting and information function
  3. Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
  4. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
  5. ARDC (V2) Supervisory Council Election
  6. ARDC (V2) Research Election
  7. ARDC (V2) Risk Election
  8. ARDC (V2) Security Election
  9. Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)
  10. Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025
  11. OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution

Tally Voting

For this month, a total of 2 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in December counted. These are the proposals that were considered:

  1. Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program
  2. Treasury Management V1.2

Communication Rationale

For the CR, the published rationals of all the votes of the month were considered, taking into account Snapshot and Tally. To obtain the maximum qualification in this aspect, a delegate had to express his rationale for all the month’s votes, in other words, 13 (11 Snapshot + 2 Tally).

Delegate Feedback

683×397 19.6 KB

In this section, delegate comments are manually reviewed, subjected to an initial validity filter, and then qualitatively scored with ratings from 1 to 4, as approved in the [proposal](Tally | Arbitrum | [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program?

AD_4nXfYIBsDHS-MsuBBwCe-kDR7KcpSgQjk7SGTk4t8MIf9VI8yN-qaiOCxpbaJAKQyWV1cmzmIGiJKPMaNeCYZkXVdlfKuCgLcxcla4WEq0gzs4yI5VtchqUJmAEF6qRJLQ2FlShl1Yg
AD_4nXfYIBsDHS-MsuBBwCe-kDR7KcpSgQjk7SGTk4t8MIf9VI8yN-qaiOCxpbaJAKQyWV1cmzmIGiJKPMaNeCYZkXVdlfKuCgLcxcla4WEq0gzs4yI5VtchqUJmAEF6qRJLQ2FlShl1Yg707×144 3.01 KB

In addition to scored comments like the one above, there are also cases where comments are deemed invalid. This can happen, for example, if the comment is a Communication Rationale or if the author of the comment is also the author of a proposal and therefore treated as a proposer rather than a delegate.
AD_4nXcmLDRLyOgUVoEyPCTux6oCYf_1_g3CVPuDKLDDOXOtkQWct-RAnySxaeNurASKNLwdYoKJT8DyBUk0SdzsXeHetpT0EeVDquA7qq26Cxhv03JiH-vrg8zyIsuJJvMVR3S7B_8Hpg

You may also encounter comments like this one, which do not add value to the discussion.

AD_4nXcMVN-glkXz-ibOWFiyWjJ2QRetZ1GkM713D8H9g1DeDL3eQDob7_Eiuhdw6QERpvABxhno7Ss1O5av-T1HkjpIsnyI3IjbOfgaJ8IkmGNNhWCf7L-QYU543Z8rSk3ZVS986XvunQ
AD_4nXcMVN-glkXz-ibOWFiyWjJ2QRetZ1GkM713D8H9g1DeDL3eQDob7_Eiuhdw6QERpvABxhno7Ss1O5av-T1HkjpIsnyI3IjbOfgaJ8IkmGNNhWCf7L-QYU543Z8rSk3ZVS986XvunQ724×158 2.7 KB

The reasons can vary: it might be repetitive compared to other delegates’ inputs or lack the necessary depth of analysis or relevance. These two criteria are key. While it is relatively easy to achieve good timing and clarity in communication, if the comment lacks meaningful content, questions aspects already addressed in the proposal or fails to provide any critique or suggestion, timing and clarity will matter little.

You can check your Delegate Feedback in the Karma Dashboard.

Presence in Discussion Multiplier

As approved in the Tally proposal, the Presence in Discussion parameter acts as a multiplier that measures the presence and participation of delegates throughout the month.

For December, 18 proposals were considered:

  1. [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Code of Conduct + Formalizing the DAO’s Operations
  2. What If AI Models Lived Onchain? Exploring a Bold New Frontier with Arbitrum Stylus
  3. [RFC] Arbitrum as the Home of Builders - embracing Chain Abstraction
  4. [RFC]: Fund Completion of CEX-> DEX Incentive Research
  5. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
  6. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal for Maintenance and Continuous Enhancement of ArbitrumHub to Meet the Evolving Needs of the Arbitrum Ecosystem and DAO
  7. OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
  8. Grant Progress Tracking Platform
  9. ARB’s Wake-Up Call: A Critical Pivot is Necessary
  10. The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
  11. Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)
  12. Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025 - Eastern Europe’s Leading Ethereum Conference and
  13. Directional Temperature Check on Arbitrum Ventures Setup
  14. **Mission: Activate the Arbitrum community and market Arbitrum DAO - Arbitrum Fellowships proposal)
  15. Are We Overlooking Marketing in Favor of Development in Arbitrum?
  16. [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2
  17. [Non-Constitutional] [RFC] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
  18. Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

December Results

You can see the dashboard with the results implemented by Karma here.

Of all the participating delegates, 67 were eligible to receive compensation.

  • Tier 1: 27 delegates.
  • Tier 2: 15 delegates.
  • Tier 3: 7 delegates.
Delegate PUSD
Gauntlet 7,000.00
jameskbh 6,737.92
Lampros DAO 6,640.83
paulofonseca 6,622.00
0x_ultra 6,594.14
Jojo 6,621.65
Bob-Rossi 6,523.16
BlockworksResearch 6,510.31
Tane 6,509.09
L2Beat 6,556.25
0xDonPepe 6,452.67
DisruptionJoe 6,433.84
404DAO 6,396.25
Ignas 6,438.60
GFXLabs 6,370.00
0xTALVO 6,283.41
Argonaut 6,275.49
Juanrah 6,221.12
cp0x 6,418.79
GensDAO 6,228.05
CastleCapital 6,183.88
Karpatkey 6,055.00
TempeTechie 6,055.00
Ezr3al 6,002.50
UADP 5,991.09
Kuiqian.eth 5,971.91
PGov 5,095.95
KuiClub 4,970.40
Larva 4,889.22
Gabriel 4,848.66
Vertex Protocol 4,699.51
olimpio 4,699.51
pedrob 4,657.61
NathanVDH 4,540.21
Dragonfly 4,515.00
Tekr0x.eth 4,515.00
Bruce 4,446.92
StableLab 4,410.00
AranaDigital 4,305.00
DAOplomats 4,246.96
BristolBlockchain 4,233.78
Curia 4,200.00
newze 3,206.25
web3citizenxyz 3,187.32
Griff 3,178.57
DanielO 3,168.81
Alex Lumley 3,126.92
MaxLomu 3,079.63
Areta 3,071.43

Compensations in USD: $262,228.02

Bonus Points

This month, Bonus Points were awarded to several delegates for their attendance at the call, as voted in v1.5.

Adding Bonus Points for delegates who attends to the “Arbitrum Governance Report Call” (monthly) and the “Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call.”

  • For the monthly call, 2,5% BP will be awarded for attendance.
  • For the bi-weekly calls, 2.5% BP will be awarded for attending each call.

This month, there were 2 GRCs, 2 bi-weekly calls took place as usual, with a maximum possible score of 7.5% as a result. In total, 37 delegates received Bonus Points for attending the Bi-weekly & the Governance Reporting Calls.

Incentives to delegates (December)

The total cost destined to the delegates this month will be $260,867.73 USD.

You can check our Public Table to see the detailed breakdown of delegates’ results.

Costs

We track all cost data for greater transparency in our Payment Distribution Thread.

New Members of the Program

Now that we are working with this new version, 1.5, we have registered the new applicants for the Delegate Incentive Program. Remember, you can apply anytime.

We have six new participants who will be part of the program next month:

[CALL TO ACTION!] Dispute Period

As stated in the proposal, delegates have a timeframe to express their disagreement with the results presented by the Incentive Program Administrator.

To raise a dispute, delegates should do so by posting a message in the forum using the following template:

Title: Dispute

User name

Reason for dispute (please detail)

10 Likes
3

Title: Dispute

Larva

I was under the impression that I attended all 4 calls, but why are my bonus points only 1.99?

I checked the detailed topics and my posts in the karma table and it doesn’t show my actual feedbacks in exact one-to-one correspondence, such as [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Code of Conduct + Formalizing the DAO's Operations - #3 by Larva

So I think something must be wrong. I hope you can check it again. Thank you very much!

1 Like
4

Title: Dispute

ChamaDAO

We’d like to raise a dispute for results of December 2024. It would also be good to clarify somewhat how and when forum comments vs Snapshot rationale form entries are included in this scoring.

Specific Concerns:

  1. Communication Rationale:
  • Some of our comments were marked as invalid, despite providing relevant analysis and critique. We have consistently stood against overspending by the DAO and have regularly communicated it in threads and in our Snapshot voting rationale. Communication rationale that is included in Snapshot should also be included as part of our CR score. To our knowledge we have provided rationale in each Snapshot vote in the appropriate form, but it is not clear they are showing in the new version of Snapshot. However, there are some that are not included in CR score like on the votes here, here, and here. We would appreciate clarification on the criteria used and a review of these assessments.

  1. Delegate Feedback
    Additionally we provided feedback to two proposals this month and in previous threads that were then voted this month. Can we clarify if only forum posts in the current month are counted towards these scorings. We provided feedback this month on the DAO grants allocation and Designing the Reporting and Information function. Both provided feedback along the usual lines of our criticisms of bad spending and promotion of value add programs for the DAO. If there are further guidelines on what counts to this section please provide them as explained in the main thread it is unclear why we are missing points here.

  2. Call Attendance
    We had a representative attend the Monthly governance call so believe that we should have bonus points applied for this section.

Requested Actions:

  • Please review our Snapshot comments and communication rationale to see if it should add to the CR scoring here.
  • Increase the DF scoring here considering we have been giving consistent and clear feedback on less spending when we post.
  • Account for attendance on governance monthly call.
5

Hi @Larva

According to our attendance records, you were only present in the last call on 17/12. We’re using software to track attendance for all sessions automatically. If you believe you attended a call that wasn’t logged, please provide evidence so we can make the necessary adjustments.

As the proposal explains, a delegate can achieve a better score with fewer comments because the Delegate Feedback parameter prioritizes QUALITY over QUANTITY.

The purpose of the rubric is to encourage delegates to provide feedback only when they have something valuable to contribute, rather than trying to game the program. If a delegate attempts to increase their “Presence in discussions” multiplier with low-value comments, their score will likely be negatively impacted.

Regarding comments scored with zero vs. marked as invalid:

I would also like to know what considerations are taken to qualify some comments with a score of zero instead of just marking them as invalid. If marked invalid, the score is unaffected, if marked with a zero, this lowers the average score.

Comments marked as invalid could be due to:

  • Being a comment that doesn’t add value to the discussion.
  • Being identified as a rationale, thus considered under the Communication Rationale parameter.
  • Being a comment in a Delegate Thread, which also qualifies as a rationale.
  • Being posted in a thread not included in the analysis.
  • Being merged into a single rubric when multiple responses were posted by the same author within the same discussion.

Comments marked as valid but scored with zero are those that the program administrator deems irrelevant to the discussion. As you pointed out, this negatively impacts the scoring. The goal is to discourage spammy, repetitive, or shallow comments—such as those generated using AI tools.

The comment you mention is dated October 17 and what we are evaluating here is December’s contributions.

2 Likes
6

Hi @chamadao!

1-

Both CRs for Designing the Reporting and Information function and the Questbook Season 3 proposal were already considered. We take notice that we didn’t consider the [Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum? Communication Rationale and fixed it. We encourage you to put your CRs in the Forum so is easier to track them.

2-

As the proposal explains, a delegate can achieve a better score with fewer comments because the Delegate Feedback parameter prioritizes QUALITY over QUANTITY.

Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP)

Under this system, a delegate could achieve the same score with (for example) one big significant contribution or by making several smaller contributions. It also discourages actors who might try to take advantage of the program.

The purpose of the rubric is to encourage delegates to provide feedback only when they have something valuable to contribute, rather than trying to game the program. If a delegate attempts to increase their “Presence in discussions” multiplier with low-value comments, their score will likely be negatively impacted.

Regarding comments scored with zero vs. marked as invalid:

I would also like to know what considerations are taken to qualify some comments with a score of zero instead of just marking them as invalid. If marked invalid, the score is unaffected, if marked with a zero, this lowers the average score.

Comments marked as invalid could be due to:

  • Being a comment that doesn’t add value to the discussion.
  • Being identified as a rationale, thus considered under the Communication Rationale parameter.
  • Being a comment in a Delegate Thread, which also qualifies as a rationale.
  • Being posted in a thread not included in the analysis.
  • Being merged into a single rubric when multiple responses were posted by the same author within the same discussion.

Comments marked as valid but scored with zero are those that the program administrator deems irrelevant to the discussion. As you pointed out, this negatively impacts the scoring. The goal is to discourage spammy, repetitive, or shallow comments—such as those generated using AI tools.

3- According to our attendance records, you were not present in any call during December. We’re using software to track attendance for all sessions automatically. If you believe you attended a call that wasn’t logged, please provide evidence so we can make the necessary adjustments.

7

Will we get the December Participation Rate (PR90) like we previously got the November Participation Rate? It was realy very helpful

8

gm @danielM, according to the Karma Dashboard your Participation Rate for January is 100% and you met the necessary criteria to participate in DIP’s January iteration.

1 Like
9

Title: Dispute

I think my bonus points were calculated incorrectly.

The first call is listed from September, I was at both bi-weekly calls in December,
I don’t know how you determine number of calls, but here is my browser history for meets:

image
image409×146 6.64 KB

10

Thanks for the clear and helpful feedback along with the fast updates.

We will take this into consideration for further delegate communication.

For the call attendence, please let us know how best to flag attendance in the future as we are not often joining under an official ChamaDAO email or similar but instead DAO contributors will go. Specifically we were in attendance to the proposal call that was mentioned here.

Thanks again.

11

Hey guys!
I think this list of proposals is not correct.

Number 16 didn’t had any comment in December and is an inactive and past proposal.
And this list is missing, at least, the proposal for Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025 - Eastern Europe’s Leading Ethereum Conference and Hackathon and [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2 - #88 by Tally_Support

2 Likes
12

Title: Dispute

@paulofonseca

Reason for dispute:
I would love to understnad why my comments on the Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025 - Eastern Europe’s Leading Ethereum Conference and Hackathon proposal were not considered valid and taken into account.

Specifically I would like to argue that my final comment in that proposal, was actually relevant, timely, required a bit of analysis and also had impact in the sense that it shows how and why the proposal was considered passed and that it should be funded through the 2025 Events Budget.

Also, regarding my comment above, I’m not sure if the presence multiplier is being calculated correctly because the list of proposals included doesn’t seem right.

Thank you!

13

Hi Paulo, thanks for flagging.

We’ve made changes to the list. We deprecated:

And added:

1 Like
14

Please add the communicators in the Delegate Incentive Program 1.5 - Application Thread and Code of Conduct Adherence so we can link the user to the delegation. Also, a small tag alongside the name would be helpful.

Anything else you need, please let us know.

15

Hi cp0x, thanks for flagging.

We’ve added the BP for the call attendance that wasn’t considered and adjusted your score.

1 Like
17

Title: Dispute

Larva

Thanks for your clarification! I can’t find the meeting histroy, so just let it go.

What counts as presence is that among the 18 proposals you mentioned, I must have feedback in December, and feedback before that does not count, right? Can you tell me how these 18 presence-related proposals came about? I usually commented on some proposals very early, most delegates commented in December, but I commented on the proposals when they came out at the end of November. How do delegates know which month they should be involved?

The proposal [RFC]: Fund Completion of CEX-> DEX Incentive Research was posted in November and the 90% feedback of delegates posted in November too, but it was counted as presence in December. Shouldn’t it be that only proposals posted in December should count as presence in December?

And I really think my feedback of [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal for Maintenance and Continuous Enhancement of ArbitrumHub to Meet the Evolving Needs of the Arbitrum Ecosystem and DAO should not be given 0 score. Because it’s not the only comment I sent in this proposal. I asked the proposer many questions before and even got resonated with other delegates. So I think this sentence is a normal interaction and a polite summary after the long communication with a proposer. I think it could be judged as invalid, but it is unfair to give me 0 points.

image
image2306×132 11.7 KB

18

Hi Paulo

After a review with the team, we decided to consider the comment valid.

The Karma dashboard now reflects it as a valid comment with its respective rubric. Thanks for flagging!

1 Like
19

Title: Dispute
@0xTALVO.ETH_MTY

Reason for dispute:

I believe an attendance call has been missed on the Public Table.
Proof:

Imagen de WhatsApp 2025-01-16 a las 23.49.49_ccaeee6e
Imagen de WhatsApp 2025-01-16 a las 23.49.49_ccaeee6e1275×181 55.1 KB

image
image1240×763 47.3 KB

I’ve been in every call from the start, never more than 5 minutes late. I’m curious how participation is measured. Do I need to comment in the chat to be counted?

20

Hi 0xTalvo, thanks for flagging.

For December’s iteration, we merged both GRC calls in one.

When crafting the proposal, GRC was one call and it was not splitted in two. You can find it in the Karma Dashboard as the ‘Monthly’ call.

image
image236×165 6.77 KB

You received the maximum amount of BP possible: 7,5%.

1 Like
21

Hey @SEEDGov, any feedback for this?