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

[WinVerse]

Title: Dispute

Username: DAOplomats (@WinVerse)

Reason for Dispute
DAOplomats were awarded 0 points for delegate feedback and that was quite surprising that’s why I tried confirming from @Gianluca on TG what DAOplomats account was checked in tracking these feedbacks.

Our responses to some of the proposals considered:

1. [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Code of Conduct + Formalizing the DAO’s Operations
2. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
3. OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
4. Directional Temperature Check on Arbitrum Ventures Setup
5. Are We Overlooking Marketing in Favor of Development in Arbitrum?
6. [Non-Constitutional] [RFC] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3

ps: we are just posting this as we wanted first to confirm the account these feedback were tracked

[SEEDGov]

@Griff

@SEEDGov I don’t want to escalate to a full on dispute, for of a clarification.

I voted the same way on the snapshot as I voted for the Tally votes:

Hi Griff, thanks for flagging.

There was an issue in which Tally and Snapshot comments were not indexed. Will try to fix this alongside the Karma Team. In the meantime, adding the rationale to the Communication Thread (or in the same forum post) might be a good tool to secure the accounting of the Rationale.

@WinVerse

I tried confirming from @Gianluca on TG what DAOplomats account was checked in tracking these feedbacks.

Hi WinVerse, thanks for flagging!

Thanks for flagging. There was an issue with the dashboard where it failed to index more than one forum account. We are working on that right now and it will be fixed for next month. In this particular case, the dashboard was indexing @jengajojo’s account and not WinVerse.
We’ll adjust your score with the relevant feedback.

[EzR3aL]

Title: Dispute

EzR3aL

First of all I know the dispute is already too late so I don’t mind it not being recognized. Its rather to flag that there might be a problem or to better understand why some comments have not been recognized.

1. OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution - #60 by EzR3aL
2. Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP) - #41 by EzR3aL

Otherwise I do think that DIP 1.5 is great! Keep up the work

[Griff]

@SEEDGov

There was an issue in which Tally and Snapshot comments were not indexed. Will try to fix this alongside the Karma Team. In the meantime, adding the rationale to the Communication Thread (or in the same forum post) might be a good tool to secure the accounting of the Rationale.

Yep it was in my Delegate Communication Thread, it’s just the same comment that I used for snapshot, then I just add the link to that post (that i originally made to the snapshot vote) to the comment of the tally vote.

Are you saying I should repost it to my Delegate thread for the Tally votes?

[SEEDGov]

@Larva

Hey @SEEDGov, any feedback for this?

@Larva

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 comments we considered for the monthly results are the feedback that delegates gave during that particular month. In this case, only the feedback you gave during December will be reviewed. The ‘Presence in Discussion’ parameter doesn’t determine if a comment is taken into consideration or not.

@Larva

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?

We’ve been discussing this internally and based on this feedback, we’ll execute some changes:

We noticed that there were proposals included month by month, with little activity, which was detrimental to the majority of delegates who did not participate IN THAT MONTH (because the denominator of proposals contemplated increased, and this decreased the participation score of the delegates).

We decided to implement a change from January in which we will consider the comments of the delegates in the discussions with little interaction (less than 5 comments) but we will not consider these discussions in the total discussions parameter of the month. In this way, we record the comments of the delegates, and at the same time, we do not harm the others whose scores would be drastically lowered.

@Larva

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.

Although there are several of your comments in this thread, none of them are individually good enough to score to the Delegates’ Feedback. This is based on the fact that, despite you have asked the proposer some questions, we do not believe they were sufficiently relevant to contribute to the scoring.

This was not the case, for example, in The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program - #5 by Larva where you provided a valuable approach of reporting management.

On the other hand, comments marked as valid but scored with zero are those the program administrator deems irrelevant to the discussion. This negatively impacts the scoring. The goal is to discourage spammy, repetitive, or shallow comments like those generated using AI tools.

In this case, our original intention was to mark this series of comments as invalid and to score this other comment (originally marked as invalid) as 0 where the proposer is wrongly suggested to apply for a grant program that is no longer available.

So after making the adjustments, the score will remain unchanged. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency.

Finally, we would like to remind all delegates that while a comment may have good “timing” and “clarity,” the merit of feedback lies in its relevance and reasoning. To improve scores, we recommend:

1. Take the necessary time to provide feedback. A 1–2 day extra delay won’t heavily impact timing.
2. Thoroughly review the discussions and follow subsequent feedback. Paying attention to details and fully understanding the proposal will help ensure your comment is relevant and avoids repetition.
3. Focus on proposals where you can genuinely add value. This is crucial. The changes to the DIP aim to avoid “commenting for the sake of commenting.” Rather than discouraging participation, the goal is to promote thoughtful and organic involvement.
4. Avoid using ChatGPT to “reason.” While we have no issue with its use for grammar corrections or translations, using it to generate feedback is discouraged.

[Larva]

hey @SEEDGov, thanks for your detailed feedback, I would continue to improve my work and do better.