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

[danielM]

Title: Dispute

User name: danielM

1. Reason for dispute “Communication Rationale” :

@SEEDGov

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).

I express my rationale for 4 month’s votes. Why I receive less than 4,4 points? ((4/9 * 100 * 10)/100 = 4.4)

Proofs:
Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections - Education, Community Growth, and Events: [Election & Application Thread] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - #28 by danielM

The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program:

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

Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0:

2. Reason for dispute : Delegate Feedback

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:

AIP: BOLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum

This Upgrade is another step towards a better future for Arbitrum!! I think that the Arbitrum BoLD upgrade is a great idea because it makes the network more secure and open to everyone by allowing anyone to help validate without special permissions. But how will the teams monitoring the upgrade ensure readiness during the restricted execution timeframe? And how will whitelisting Infura impact the validation and operation of Arbitrum Nova?

[Non-Constitutional] [RFC] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3

Thanks, @JoJo, for this proposal. I think adding a new Orbit domain is an exciting idea, but since Orbit domain is still new, it makes sense to start with a smaller budget. I understood, that it’s not $1 500 000 for the whole year like four other domains, but instead of giving the Orbit domain $750,000 for the whole year, it would be better splitting the funding into more steps, because starting with a smaller amount helps the program avoid wasting money while still supporting Orbit’s growt…

The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program

Thank you, @Entropy, for this amazing proposal! Addressing the real problem of misuse of funds in Arbitrum DAO by creating a reward system for reporting it is a great idea. The proposal specifies that the initial group of three DAO-associated reviewers will consist of representatives from the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy Advisors, and the elected Research Member of the ARDC However, it does not explicitly mention who will initially choose these three entities? Will we vote on candidates or …

Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals

Thanks, @Entropy , for this proposal. This sounds good. I’m just afraid that there can be too many submissions during the voting period. I hope all delegates will be have enough time for examineting and voting. According to the proposal, once strategic objectives are set, the DAO will track their progress with key results to measure success. It’s mentioned that the ARDC research member will provide quarterly reports to assess how the DAO has progressed and what areas need attention. How the …

Non-Constitutional: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead

Thanks, @ArbitrumHub.io, for this proposal and for your great job! This proposal shows good effort in trying to centralize ArbitrumDAO information and support the community. The focus on platform maintenance and the detailed cost breakdown are helpful, but $230,400 for the first year seems too high. Can the team start with a smaller budget? This would make the plan more practical and easier to support.

Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

Thank you, @thedevanshmehta for the detailed proposal. I appreciate the effort to diversify the treasury and support Real World Asset protocols on Arbitrum. This part suggests that returning applicants only need to highlight updates to their products, while new applicants will go through a fresh review process. However, it does not explicitly address how the evaluation process will ensure that both groups are assessed fairly under the same criteria. One question: How will the committee ensur…

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

@SEEDGov

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, 41 delegates received Bonus Points for attending the Bi-weekly Governance 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.

Proofs:

Oroginal file: conference_history_records.csv - Google Drive

And please don’t forget that the meeting on February 28 was later due to the wrong link: January 28, 2025 - Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call - #4 by raam

Thanks in advance for your answer!