During the month, there were a total of 8 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. . These are the proposals that were considered:
For this month, a total of 1 Tally Vote were considered for TV scoring. It’s important to clarify that proposals with the tag [CANCELED] are not counted for DIP. These are the proposals that were considered:
It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in January were counted.
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, 9 (8 Snapshot + 1 Tally).
Delegate Feedback
In the Karma Dashboard you can find the detailed breakdown of your Delegate Feedback.
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.
We’re excited to introduce a new section in our monthly Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) report.
As part of our commitment to transparency and accountability, we are now providing individual reports for each DIP participant. These reports offer insights into your voting activity throughout the month, along with comments on your contributions to the forum discussions.
We aim to continuously improve this report, delivering more granular and personalized feedback to better support delegates in their engagement and decision-making.
This month two delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their remarkable contributions to Arbitrum DAO.
@MaxLomu has received the maximum possible Bonus Points from the DIP for his contributions to [RFC] Arbitrum as the Home of Builders – Embracing Chain Abstraction. His insights and active participation have been instrumental in shaping the discussion, which has now evolved into a collaboration with Offchain Labs’ Universal Intent Engine program.
@PauloFonseca has been awarded with 5 Bonus Points from the DIP for his vigilance in identifying a double payment in a Questbook report, leading to the recovery of $10,000 USDC for the DAO. Because of this, Questbook was able to contact the grantee and request the funds back, which were returned by January 14th. You can view the funds sent back here.
For the GRC calls, 1,25% BP will be awarded for each attendance.
For the Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance calls, 1.25% BP will be awarded for attending each call.
This month, 2 bi-weekly calls took place as usual, with a maximum possible score of 2.5% as a result since GRC calls didn’t occur. In total, 43 delegates received Bonus Points for attending the Bi-weekly Governance Calls.
New Members of the Program
We have 9 new participants who are willing to be part of the program next month. Note that starting this month, we will have 1:1 mandatory calls with each new applicant.
0xAlex
ACI
Bertani
Camelot
Dragonawr (Call Pending)
Linzerd (Call Pending)
Zeptimus (Call Pending)
[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:
I have a question: If I submit my comments in advance, will they not be counted? Are only comments made by delegates in the same month encouraged? Some of my comments were posted in December 2024, but the voting takes place in January.Does this mean that we should not be too proactive or participate in the forum content too early?
Additionally I attended both calls in January which haven’t been recognized. I found a google meet list with all meetings, hopefully this is enough to prove I was there.
I remember the first meeting had a problem, where i joined later cause the original link to the meeting was broken and I was then invited by Areta to join with the new, working one.
Btw, thanks for that personal report. Really great insights. Always good to get feedback as well.
And the comment was considered invalid for January.
I also have a question about how the “presence in discussion multiplier” is calculated. A few proposals appeared in both December and January. How do you handle that? A delegate may have a meaningful comment in one month and nothing to add in the next month. Will this impact the score, or this contribution is carried over?
What is the max value for this multiplier?
I received 0 points for DF .
All my feedback I wrote with meaningful content, questions aspects and critiqueI and spent
many hours to write feedbacks.
Proofs:
You mentioned, that " We’ve detected the use of LLM for reasoning in some comments like this one." But I did not use it to write the comments, only for translation
3. Reason for dispute : bi-weekly calls
I took part in two of them using my email address, which I have on the forum and left in my DIP profile. But I received 0 points for this.
Reason for dispute: Hello @SeedGov, our team was surprised to see that we didn’t receive any points for our feedback. For that reason, we would like to understand the reasons behind this. Specifically, we would like to know why these comments were not considered:
I noticed a few of my posts related for forum activity were listed as ignored posts and not included in the formula - mostly just confused on why they don’t get included at all.
Hello there! I would like to argue for the inclusion in my DF score, of the following comments I made, that were considered invalid:
Questbook DDA Program Report - #11 by paulofonseca I think this comment above is quite relevant since it highlights the candidate’s opinion that was shared in a recorded call in October and that almost nobody knew about. I discovered this while doing my typical due diligence to vote on the elections. And I shared this information because I thought it was important for the next Questbook election, so I also made sure to share it before the Elections snapshot vote on Jan 15th, so that delegates could make a more informed decision on the Dev Tooling and Stylus Questbook election.
Hackathon Continuation Program - #145 by paulofonseca This comment was quite timely and relevant in the sense that this proposal was a bit rushed at the end of last year, before the DAO holiday break, with the pretext that the DAO needed to approve this proposal as fast as possible because the builders that won the previous hackathon were going to be attracted by other ecosystems and leave Arbitrum if this funding was not available. So my comment here was made to check on the progress of the delivery of the proposal so that the DAO would be aware of that.
Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget - #2 by paulofonseca This was the first comment in the thread and I believe it’s relevant because i captures the main objection with this proposal. I made this comment after extensive conversation in the private telegram delegates chat about it and this argument is the main reason why I ended up voting against the proposal.
Paulo Fonseca – 10% Delegatoooor Kickback Program This whole topic and conversation above is relevant, timely and impactful in the sense that in a time where the DAO is experimenting with ARB staking, researching potential quorum changes, having big movements in delegates voting power (with @lobbyfi becoming the most powerful delegate for example), this experiment of mine can bring interesting results and discourse into the arena. Also, I don’t monetarily benefit from this experiment, quite the contrary actually, since I’m giving away 10% of my earning in Arbitrum DAO, for the sake of this experiment and maybe some additional voting power delegated to me, but only if the experiment is successful.
Application Template to Utilize Funds from the DAO Events Budget - #12 by paulofonseca This is not so much a dispute but just a confirmation check. Was this comment above included in the score of the other comment I made in this thread? Just checking, because I think this one is also quite relevant for the conversation of whether to fund or not to fund this proposed event.
In both comments, the content is based exclusively on questions. This is not necessarily wrong, as it is part of the due diligence that delegates must carry out before voting, but we do not believe it qualifies as feedback.
In this case, although you raised a valid point (such as questioning the proposer’s potential reach in achieving the objectives outlined in the proposal), we do not believe the analysis was deep or productive enough to warrant a score.
It is worth mentioning that we expect delegates, in general, to consider that the DAO has mechanisms to process low-budget proposals that reach the forum, especially if they fit within any of these mechanisms(e.g. Domain Allocator Offerings - Questbook). With this in mind, we believe it would be unproductive for the DAO if delegates took the time to analyze these types of proposals deeply (which is precisely why the DAO has approved some of the previously mentioned frameworks).
After reviewing this comment, we believe that in this case, you are right. Some of the points you raised were later mentioned by other delegates. The most notable mentions include:
Questioning retroactive payment
Questioning the lack of social media activity - potential lack of influence from the proposer
Suggestion regarding the unification of roles
For this reason, we have decided to adjust your score to reflect this situation.
We hope this response has been helpful, and we remain available for any further inquiries.
The first comment was classified as a Communication Rationale (CR). Generally, a position can be valid or not, but this comment does not attempt to suggest improvements to the proposal; instead, it primarily establishes a stance on the matter. Ultimately, taking a stance aligns more with a CR than with providing feedback.
The same applies to your comment on the OpCo proposal, which was treated as a rationale for the same reason.
Your comment on ArbitrumHub was also considered a rationale, though it contained valid concerns. However, these points had already been mentioned by other delegates earlier. While agreeing with other delegates is not inherently wrong, it does not meet the criteria for scoring.
Regarding the Arbitrum SOS proposal, this could be considered feedback. However, two factors led us to refrain from assigning a score:
a. The proposer responded that pre-defining categories would not be optimal. While this is not your responsibility, the lack of impact from your comment is an important factor.
b. There was no additional analysis or further suggestions to support attributing a score.
Additionally, from our perspective, your comment somewhat ignores the proposal’s context. If Entropy or any other DAO actor had clarity on the main verticals to be included as objectives, we would not be discussing the SOS framework in the first place.
Regarding the calls, we confirm that you are listed as an attendee in the session on 28-01, meaning we inadvertently failed to count these bonus points. Your score has been adjusted accordingly.
As for the first call, we did not find your alias on the attendance list, Could you please provide a link to the list you mentioned so we can verify?
You are right, this comment was omitted from the analysis. While the incorporation is not a “substantial” change to the proposal, it remains important. We also highlight the relevance and/or depth of the rest of the feedback by mentioning that it is necessary to include not only monetary aspects but also any other resources needed to achieve the objective.
The comment has been marked as valid, and we have updated your score accordingly. Thank you for flagging it!
Regarding the Presence in Discussions multiplier, you can find the maximum value in the rubric details:
In your case, you received a 10% bonus, and the 20% this month was achieved with at least seven comments.
Regarding how we filter proposals included in the multiplier, last month we made adjustments to better reflect the forum’s current activity:
This means that only proposals with real activity in the analyzed month are included (excluding those where the activity is exclusively related to Rationales or proposer comments/updates).
To be honest, this is a somewhat tricky point of the multiplier, as it is clear that it is impossible to satisfy everyone regarding the inclusion/exclusion of certain threads, but we are making efforts to ensure that this parameter best represents the forum’s activity for that month. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome (for now, we have observed significant changes from December to January, making the multiplier more accessible. Last month, 18 proposals were included versus 8 in January).
These two Rationales were initially omitted in our analysis, but they have now been incorporated, and your score has been updated accordingly. Note that we suggest replicating the comment in the forum to gain more visibility.
Thank you for the report!
Perhaps the wording was not appropriate; we were specifically referring to your comment in The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program, in which the first two paragraphs contain content that typically aligns with an LLM-generated response when given the proposal for analysis.
For example:
The rest of the comment consists of questions, which is not necessarily bad, as it is part of the due diligence that every delegate must conduct to vote with as much information as possible. However, it does not constitute an act of “providing feedback.” For this reason, even setting aside the question of whether an LLM was used and for what purpose, the comment does not meet the criteria for scoring.
Regarding the other comments, we will analyze them one by one:
Once again, this consists of questions, which align more with a delegate’s due diligence before voting. This is reinforced by the fact that, at the time, the proposal was already being voted on in Tally.
The value of this feedback is questionable. The proposer himself mentioned in his response that the suggestion to allocate fewer funds to the Orbit Domain had already been addressed. Another important factor is that, by that time, the DAO had already voted favorably in Snapshot regarding this Domain and the budget allocated to it. While it was only a Temp Check (non-binding), it serves as a reference to understand whether the DAO genuinely cares about the suggestion or not.
It is recommended to thoroughly evaluate the prior context.
The biggest issue with this comment is the lack of context/due diligence. The Research Member of the ARDC was elected by the DAO two months ago. Despite this, this is yet another comment that consists mainly of questions rather than actual feedback. Again, this is not inherently bad, but it is not enough to warrant scoring.
This comment lacks depth. There is little analysis, and the only aspect questioned is the budget, which had already been mentioned multiple times by other delegates.
We do not understand the concern expressed in the first question. The established process for both new and returning participants is clear, making it difficult to determine what you mean by a “fair process.”
Regarding the suggestion to explore other sectors of RWA, this was already proposed by several delegates earlier in the discussion.
Conclusion
Looking at the comments overall, we recommend focusing on adding value in areas that align with your background. Additionally, keep in mind that any comment or suggestion that has already been mentioned by another delegate has a low likelihood of receiving a score.
After reviewing the attendance list again, we have confirmed that you did attend the meetings on 14-01 and 28-01. It is worth noting that the rest of the attendances shown in the proof you provided correspond to February.
Your bonus points have been updated, and consequently, your final score has been adjusted.
Congratulations! With the changes introduced, you have reached the minimum threshold of 65 points and have become an eligible delegate for Tier 3 for January 2025.
Introducing a budget limit per project/applicant: This had not been suggested before, and in fact, the proposer stated that this suggestion would be incorporated.
Including community-based evaluators: This aspect had already been mentioned by another delegate, and the proposer had previously confirmed being in contact with other potential actors.
The first point is valid (though a minor change to the proposal), and therefore, we have decided to assign a score to this comment.
This comment is not bad, but it mainly consists of questions. As we have mentioned earlier in this same post, asking questions is not inherently wrong (which is why it is not given a score of 0), but it does not fully align with the act of providing feedback per se. Perhaps if it had been accompanied by a more in-depth analysis, the outcome would have been different.
To be honest, at that stage of the discussion, it was clear that it would be difficult for the DAO to fund the initiative due to tight timelines, especially considering that the proposer was advised to seek funding through Questbook. We do not believe this comment altered the outcome of the proposal or influenced other delegates.
This comment was made in a discussion that had been inactive for over a month (except for comments from two delegates who were banned from the program, among other reasons, for reviving old posts without justification). Additionally, the proposal had already been redirected to another grant program (Stylus). As with the previous comment, we do not believe it justifies receiving a score, as it does not appear to have influenced the proposal’s outcome or other delegates.
This comment had already been considered initially and is therefore included in the current scoring.
While we understand your point here, we would like to mention that the candidate’s opinion was already known before you made this comment, as @Entropy had clarified the following in the introduction of the report in question:
Therefore, while your comment is relevant, we do not believe it provides new information. Rather, it represents your opinion regarding an inconsistency detected during Entropy’s reporting within the Domain.
As an internal policy, no action related to the DIP itself is incentivized. This has always been the case, and you can verify it as we have not even considered votes related to the program within the framework.
We consider your oversight regarding MSS valuable, but we do not believe it falls within the scope of the Delegates’ Feedback parameter. Perhaps it is more similar to the oversight that earned you BP for the duplicated transaction in Questbook.
That being said, while the current DIP framework generally ignores delegate actions related to monitoring funded initiatives—except in cases like the Questbook transaction, where we could use BP as a tool to reward you—other initiatives, such as The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program, represent an initial attempt to establish oversight mechanisms.
This case is similar to the previous one, although it is worth mentioning that @JoJo indicated that KYB was completed on the same day as your comment. Therefore, we are not sure if your comment can be credited for the resolution, as the delay was not due to inefficiency from the signers but rather a compliance issue, which is beyond MSS’s control.
It is difficult to classify this comment within a parameter like Delegates’ Feedback since it pertains to a proposal that has already been approved in Tally. Additionally, as mentioned before, any action related to oversight of funded proposals seems to fall within the scope of The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program.
For example, if your questions led to information confirming the misuse of granted funds, you would be eligible for a reward within that program. Therefore, including this parameter in our framework poses a risk of overlap.
It captures your main objection to the proposal and as you said it’s the main reason you voted against it. This does not mean that the comment had an impact on the proposal’s outcome or influenced other delegates. The vote ended with overwhelming support (96.01%).
This publication seems quite distant from the scope of the Delegates’ Feedback parameter. As with any contribution outside a specific categorization, it could be eligible for BP in some cases. However, the main issue is that if we award more scoring for this experiment, it would mean indirectly funding it (since part of your compensation, which is tied to scoring, serves as a bribe for other delegators), and we are not comfortable with that situation.
To be clear, we are not expressing any opinion on the experiment itself. In fact, we do not yet have a defined stance on it. At this moment, we simply want to avoid awarding scoring to this specific post since it impacts the money you will distribute to your delegators.
Indeed, both comments were merged into one for scoring purposes. Apologies for the omission in clarifying this.
We would like to thank everyone for their feedback. The results and corresponding tables have been updated to reflect changes in some scorings/compensations.
We’ve attended a number of meetings, below is a list from our side. It seems we may not be getting counted again in the attendance tracking even though we have been joining with a ChamaDAO labeled account. If you can please advise how to fix this.
ChamaDAO representative attended the following meetings in January:
AOPC call on Jan 16
Both AVI office hours and the DAO call on Jan 20
DAO grants call on Jan 21
Incentives discussion on Jan 22
the ADPC RPC market call and the Open discussion on Jan 28
the ADPC call on Jan 30
Not sure that all of these are counted in bonus points, but we believe some are and that regular attendance to discussions about proposals and the like should be impacting the scoring.
Is your position that ARB Staking is bribing, as well? because my program is the exact same mechanism in practice, but funded with my own earnings, instead of the DAOs revenue.
As I’ve argued in the previous dispute comment, I think this program of mine is eligible for BP, as it is an experiment whose learnings will benefit the DAO. In fact, it can be argued that it already has impacted and benefited the DAO by the multiple discussions it generated since I launched it.
Also, and this is in fact the main issue as you say, I’m pretty sure you haven’t been deciding, for all these past months of DIP 1.5, to award BP to any other delegate, based on what they say they will spend that money on… right?
So it doesn’t really make sense that you’re deciding not to reward this experiment with BP because you don’t feel comfortable that that money will go to fund this experiment. It is not your decision to make really. It’s my money to spend as I see fit.
I would kindly ask you to reconsider this clearly untenable position.
@seedlatam thanks for the explanation. That’s really helpful. Regarding the call attendance, this list is my private Google meet history, as seen in the screenshot. If that’s no enough and the tool you are tracking it with isn’t listing me then it’s fine. I will make sure for the future to create a screenshot or something else as a proof. Thank
I think that awarding 30 BP to this contribution is unfair for several reasons:
Max works for Everclear as ecosystem lead, and is therefor a clear beneficiary of Arbitrum embracing a partnership with a chain abstraction provider like Everclear.
We can only assume that the collaboration of Everclear with Offchain Labs will involve a commercial transaction that will benefit Everclear, and therefore Max. Which disqualifies this contribution from BP since BP is supposed to award proposal authors when they author a proposal that doesn’t benefit them monetarily.
It sets a bad precedent and incentive for other delegates, if a proposal that in my opinion was clearly made as part of Max’s business development work to benefit Everclear, gets awarded the maximum amount of BP possible.
The proposal in question had literally no comments during the month of January 2025. If anything, the BP should be awarded in the month of February, when Max’s comment that reveals the collaboration with Offchain Labs was made.
I would kindly ask for you to reconsider the awarding all of this BP to Max, in this case, in this month.
The wording may not have been ideal, but we would like to clarify that no concrete evidence exists that this experiment has provided tangible benefits to the DAO. While the fact that it has been discussed and that a delegate has publicly chosen to delegate ARB to you is a positive step, we do not consider it sufficient to warrant the allocation of Bonus Points, regardless of how the funds may be distributed.
Additionally, we would like to remind everyone that the allocation of Bonus Points is at the discretion of the Administrator, considering the wide range of potential application cases.
yeah fair! I was not necessarily arguing to get BP from that experiment at this point. my previous comment was not a dispute, just my reply to your justification as to why it didn’t get BP. I agree that at this point the impact of the experiment is almost negligible.
Currently only the following calls award Bonus Points:
This was established at the time of voting on the proposal on Tally and then the allocated percentage per call was modified in this announcement.
We are aware that there is more activity beyond these two calls and we are currently looking for alternatives to make the framework as comprehensive as possible.
Thanks for all the clarifying answers (I completely missed the image about the multiplier, as I was searching the term in the text itself.
A closing thought about this item.
I agree that is tricky, but maybe there is room for something specific for topics that are discussed over multiple months.
In January, 2 topics were also considered in December. That inadvertently penalized delegates that engaged with the topic in December, as usually, if you present a suggestion/change or comment in the proposal and that item is dealt with, you won’t comment/engage with that topic any more, unless BIG changes happen.
My suggestion: for the multiplier calculation, if the delegate made a valid comment on that topic/thread in the previous month, it should be considered in the current month. Make it “mandatory” to engage with the conversation within that month can lead to unwanted results.
I agree; this ensures greater fairness. Prioritizing convenience in review while ignoring those who participated last month is discouraging delegates’ enthusiasm.@SEEDGov
It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in January were counted.
