Larva
Hi @Larva, below we will respond case by case:
Proposal: Arbitrum Sponsorship at RWA Paris 2025
[Non-Constitutional] DePolis, collective sensemaking for Arbitrum DAO
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.
Arbitrum Independent Trench Operative
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.
Newze
Hi @newze !
Comments are analyzed on a monthly basis, regardless of when the vote occurred.
In your specific case, your comments from December 2024 were considered for that month’s results.
Ezr3al
Hi @EzR3aL ! Below we will respond case by case:
-
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?
Jameskbh
Hi @Jameskbh
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).
danielM
Hi @danielM
These Rationales were properly accounted for.
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:
AIP: BOLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum:
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.
[Non-Constitutional] [RFC] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3:
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.
Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals:
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.
Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0:
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.
Argonaut
Hi @Argonaut
In this case, there are two suggestions:
- 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.
Bob-Rossi
Hi @Bob-Rossi !
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.
Paulo Fonseca
Hi @paulofonseca !
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.