April Participants
For the April iteration of the program, 78 participants enrolled, 69 of whom met the regular requirements to qualify.
You can see the full list here.
Security Council Elections: Mandatory Voting
Please note that for the months of April and May, we have added a special requirement to be eligible for the program: delegates must have voted in the Security Council Elections that concluded on May 3rd, 2025.
You can visualize this in each Delegate’s Profile in the Karma Dashboard.
Delegates who didn’t vote on Security Council elections and won’t qualify for April and May incentives:
- DisruptionJoe
- Lovely4Wonders
- BristolBlockchain
- LobbyFi
- danielo - RnDAO
- McFly - Bacon Labs
- Agnes
- Bobbay
- Bruce1
Parameters Breakdown
Snapshot Voting
During the month, there were a total of 4 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. These are the proposals that were considered:
- OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
- [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
- TMC ARB Recommendation
- TMC Stablecoin Recommendation
Tally Voting
For this month, a total of 1 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. These are:
It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in April were counted.
Delegate Feedback
In the Karma Dashboard you can find the detailed breakdown of your Delegate Feedback.
Presence in Discussion Multiplier
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.
For April, 7 proposals were considered:
- Proposal [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
- DAO Discussion: Vote Buying Services
- TMC - Stablecoin Withdrawal Process
- [Non-Constitutional] Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order
- DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
- A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum
- SOS Discussions
To get the multiplier a delegate needed:
For 5% (1.05) = At least 2 comments (>25%)
For 10% (1.10) = At least 4 comments (>50%)
For 20% (1.20) = At least 6 comments (>75%)
It is important to note that we considered @JamesKBH feedback, so for the multiplier calculation, if the delegate made a valid comment on that topic/thread in the previous month, it was considered in the current month.
Delegate Feedback Reporting
We are excited to introduce a new version of our Delegate Feedback Reporting. From now, you can check the Delegate Feedback Reporting in our Notion page.
We want to keep iterating these reports with community feedback. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to reach us.
April Results
You can see the dashboard with the results implemented by Karma here.
Of all the participating delegates, 30 were eligible to receive compensation.
- Tier 1: 4 delegates. (13.33%)
- Tier 2: 12 delegates. (40,00%)
- Tier 3: 14 delegates. (46,67%)
| Delegate | TIER | PUSD |
|---|---|---|
| L2Beat | 1 | 7,000.00 |
| Jojo | 1 | 6,450.33 |
| Gauntlet | 1 | 6,395.20 |
| 404DAO | 1 | 6,045.25 |
| 0xDonPepe | 2 | 5,012.19 |
| olimpio | 2 | 4,948.80 |
| CastleCapital | 2 | 4,928.05 |
| MaxLomu | 2 | 4,877.91 |
| Reverie | 2 | 4,779.00 |
| TempeTechie | 2 | 4,770.90 |
| Tekr0x.eth | 2 | 4,746.20 |
| GFXLabs | 2 | 4,689.51 |
| GMX | 2 | 4,458.60 |
| Karpatkey | 2 | 4,319.92 |
| paulofonseca | 2 | 4,243.08 |
| Vertex Protocol | 2 | 4,217.80 |
| StableLab | 3 | 3,241.34 |
| Areta | 3 | 3,192.75 |
| Tane | 3 | 3,167.34 |
| Tamara | 3 | 3,165.81 |
| pedrob | 3 | 3,136.64 |
| jameskbh | 3 | 3,135.79 |
| TodayInDeFi | 3 | 3,103.40 |
| Griff | 3 | 3,074.85 |
| BlockworksResearch | 3 | 3,072.50 |
| Rawrau | 3 | 3,056.75 |
| Gabriel | 3 | 3,044.70 |
| AranaDigital | 3 | 3,035.00 |
| DAOplomats | 3 | 3,031.00 |
| Bob-Rossi | 3 | 3,017.26 |
The total cost destined for the delegates this month would be $125,357.89.
It’s important to note that the final numbers might be different because of the ARB Cap, as stated in the proposal.
You can also check our Public Table to see the detailed breakdown of delegates’ results.
Eligible Delegates - Average Voting Power
This month, we decided to display the incentive distribution based on the Average Voting Power (AVP) of each delegate eligible for compensation.
AVP-Based Distribution – April
From a total of 30 eligible delegates:
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 17 (56.67%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 13 (43.33%)
Within the group of Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000:
- Delegates with AVP < 100,000: 11 (64.71% of this group, 36.67% of total)
- Delegates with AVP > 100,000: 6 (35.29% of this group, 20.00% of total)
Distribution Per Tiers – April
- Tier 1: 4 eligible delegates in total
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 2 (50%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 2 (50%)
- Tier 2: 12 eligible delegates in total
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 6 (50%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 6 (50%)
- Tier 3: 14 eligible delegates in total
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 9 (64.29%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 5 (35.71%)
Conclusion
The data shows that, for this month, despite the Voting Power Multiplier, delegates with “lower voting power” were able to access incentives to a greater extent than those with “higher voting power.”
As an additional takeaway, the distribution across tiers suggests that Tiers 1 and 2 demonstrate a fairly balanced access to incentives—when conditions are met.
Payments
We track all payment data for greater transparency in our Payment Distribution Thread.
Bonus Points
This month, 2 bi-weekly and 1 GRC calls took place, with a maximum possible score of 3.75%.
Note on Delegates Who Didn’t Qualify
- 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.
Extraordinary Contributions
This month thirteen delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their contributions to Arbitrum DAO:
-
PauloFonseca was awarded 15 Bonus Points (45 in total) due to his valuable contributions toward the execution of the ETH Bucharest event.
-
The L2Beat team was given 10 Bonus Points for their participation in ETH Bucharest (not only at the booth, but also because Sinkas participated as a speaker).
As a side note, we would like to highlight two “extraordinary” contributions:
- Builders’ Voices Needed: Shaping the Future of Arbitrum Together: Although the ultimate impact of this call to action is yet to be fully defined, we have already seen partial results, as several builders—many of whom typically do not engage with the DAO—have responded to the thread. This is highly valuable, and in our view, this initiative already deserves Bonus Points.
- SOS Discussion Calls: During April (and the beginning of May), L2Beat effectively organized a series of calls to discuss the different SOS submissions that appeared on the forum. These sessions provided a space for each proposer to present their SOS matrices and allowed delegates and other stakeholders to ask questions. We also view this as an initiative that deserves Bonus Points.
Since L2Beat already maxed out the score, and considering that both contributions can still be considered for the month of May, as the SOS discussions are ongoing, and the “Call to Action” to builders is still receiving engagement, we decided to wait for awarding them Bonus Points. Also, by then, we will likely have greater clarity on the final impact of both initiatives.
-
404DAO, Don Pepe, MaxLomu, Gabriel, Dragonawr and Gauntlet delegations received 10 Bonus Points for their SOS Submissions.
-
Tekr0x received 10 Bonus Points for their participation in the Arbitrum Booth at ETH Bucharest and for organizing a Side Event during the conference.
-
Blockworks Research received 10 Bonus Points for their outstanding contribution related to the podcast published on April 9th, featuring AJ Warner, where several highly relevant topics for Arbitrum DAO—such as the OpCo—were discussed. Rest of the rationale here.
-
JoJo received 5 Bonus Points for his meaningful suggestion in the thread Proposal [Non-constitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program where the delegate suggested allocating the stablecoin remainder to the TMC as part of the proposal. This suggestion was included as a voting option and ultimately approved by the DAO. Rest of the rationale here.
-
DAOplomats and TempeTechie received 5 Bonus Points for their participation in the Arbitrum Booth at the ETH Bucharest conference.
On Delegates Who Did Not Qualify
We know that some delegates, mostly smaller ones, came close to meeting the criteria this month but did not qualify. While this can be discouraging, it’s important to understand that the program is built around two core pillars:
1) Participation in Voting to Help Reach Quorum
Delegates with larger voting power are in a better position to influence outcomes and contribute to quorum.
2) Contributor Professionalization in Arbitrum
Regardless of voting power, the program evaluates the substance of each delegate’s participation in discussions. It is essential that contributions either lead to proposal changes, influence the positions of other delegates, or add clear value to ongoing debates.
For smaller delegates, this second point is especially important. If their contributions are limited in visibility or impact, it becomes difficult to justify compensation, as their voting activity alone carries limited weight in meeting the DAO’s goals.
Lastly, we want to clarify that the feedback shared in our monthly reports is intended to be constructive. It is not a judgment of individual value, but part of a broader effort to support and develop capable delegates and contributors who can bring meaningful input to both daily governance and long-term decision-making.
New Members of the Program
We have 2 new participants who are willing to be part of the program next month. Note that we will have 1:1 calls with each new applicant.
Remember, you can apply anytime.
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:
Title: Dispute
Username:
Reason for dispute: (please detail, especially if it is a dispute regarding the subjective parameters of the program, it must be well argued to be analyzed.):
The proposed 500M ARB Builder Appreciation Airdrop
