[DIP v1.51a] Delegate Incentive Program Results (January 2025)

[SEEDGov]

AranaDigital

Hi @AranaDigital

@AranaDigital

For this period, we received 12.5 out of 15 for our PR score. We believe our participation score may not reflect our prior engagement due to our recent requirement to migrate to a multisig wallet. Our previous wallet and voting records can be seen with our prior Karma Dashboard, and we have discussed the inclusion of this prior participation to our current scoring.

Please let us know if you need any additional materials or information, if there were other factors impacting our score, or how we can better ensure the inclusion with our PR rating.

In our records, both the deprecated wallet (0x0579A616689f7ed748dC07692A3F150D44b0CA09) and the new one (0x4fd86a688f36ada5d6b7eb76bb88e570c9deec86) have not participated in the last election for the Security Council (which ended on November 3, 2024; therefore, it is included in PR90).

You can verify this information on the Dashboard:

And also in each karma profile:

Old wallet:

New wallet:

Please let us know if there’s an error with this information.

cp0x

Hi @cp0x

@cp0x

It is unclear to me how the “parameter” timing is calculated.

I am one of the first to comment on all proposals, significantly before the voting starts, but I have almost the minimum score for this.

Last month the timing was 3.67, and now in the same situation it is 1.67. How is this calculated?

For example, how did you calculate this score for mixed on-chain voting, where comments were made more than six months ago? It is strange to calculate it by the Communication Rationale time, because this is commenting right after the voting.

@cp0x

A similar question about Clarity & Communication, which talks about how clear and detailed my comments are.

I understand that this is a subjective parameter, but why is there such a difference from last month? Some formula has changed, I just want to understand.

As you can observe in the notes included in the individual reports of each delegate, the scores for the parameters Timing and Clarity & Communication are adjusted relative to Relevance, Depth of Analysis, and Impact on Decision-Making. This means that it is unlikely for the Timing score to be higher than the Relevance score, for example.

This is justified by the fact that a delegate may be the first to comment, but, if he/she provides low or medium-quality feedback, it makes no sense to assign the maximum Timing score to a comment that contributed little to the discussion. Timing is valuable when the comment is insightful or has a significant impact. The same applies to Clarity & Communication.

In summary, a comment may have the same or a lower score in these two parameters compared to the other criteria in the rubric. This will be better reflected in the February results when the Scoring system transitions to a 0 to 10 scale.

@cp0x

For example, how did you calculate this score for mixed on-chain voting, where comments were made more than six months ago? It is strange to calculate it by the Communication Rationale time, because this is commenting right after the voting.

Remember that comments are analyzed only on a month-to-month basis; they do not depend on when a proposal goes to a vote, nor is there any relation to the CR.

@cp0x

• How are bonus points for participating in community calls calculated? Last month, for example, I participated in the same number of calls, but received 4.37, and now only 2.

The Bonus Points for participating in the calls are a percentage of the points you have earned during the month in the other parameters. This month, the maximum possible percentage was 2.5%, given that only 2 out of 4 scheduled calls took place.

Note: When comparing to December, it is important to remember that the maximum percentage for December was 7.5%, as 2.5% per call was assigned, a figure that decreased to 1.25% with update 1.51.

@SEEDGov

Bonus Points for Calls Assistance

• For each GRC, 1,25% BP will be awarded for attendance.

• For each bi-weekly call, 1.25% BP will be awarded for attending each call.

Rationale: Considering our experience in November, setting the maximum cap for Bonus Points at 5% is the appropriate figure. Anything above this percentage would be excessive, and anything less would not sufficiently encourage delegates to attend the calls and, consequently, gain more context about what is happening in the ArbitrumDAO. Furthermore, with the change in the Governance Report Calls (now two monthly calls instead of one), we feel the need to adjust this parameter.

Curia

Hi @Curia

@Curia

1. Regarding the proposal: Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals

• The karma link is currently pointing to our rationale post instead of our intended feedback.

• The correct link to our feedback should be: Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals - #23 by Curia

2.There is another link that clearly represents a rationale rather than feedback. We believe this should not be counted as valid feedback.

In both cases you’re right, we have forgotten to mark these comments as invalid for the DF.

Your score has been updated accordingly. Thanks for flagging!

@Curia

For CR, it said we didn’t give CR, however we did give rational here and here, can you let us know why it didn’t count?

Both CR correspond to votes on Snapshot (this becomes evident when observing that one comment was made on June 24 and the other on October 24).

It is worth noting that, although they later included the rationale in their last post on the Communication Thread, this was done on February 17, which was already past the deadline:

@SEEDGov

How do I communicate my rationale if a proposal ends on the last day of the month?

In exceptional circumstances, such as when a proposal concludes on the last day of the month, we understand it may be challenging for delegates to vote and communicate their rationale within the same monthly period. To accommodate these situations, an extension of up to 3 days after the end of the month will be granted, allowing delegates to post their voting intentions and rationales to be counted for the respective month.

Paulo Fonseca

Hi @Paulofonseca

@paulofonseca

Now, we can argue if you being part of Everclear falls, or not, into this criterion of “do not have funds allocated to the creator (of the proposal)”, but it ultimately is a decision of the PM of the DIP, since BP is awarded completely at the discretion of @SEEDGov. So I’ll wait for their response to my dispute.

@maxlomu

there was no commercial transaction.

Considering that:

• The proposal does not allocate funds to the creator.
• There is no commercial transaction between OCL and Everclear.
• The economic relationship between Everclear and @Maxlomu is beyond the scope of our analysis.

We do not believe there are grounds to change our stance regarding the BP awarded to Max.It is important to remember that what we aim to prevent is double-spending WITHIN the DAO.