[DIP v1.6] Delegate Incentive Program Results (April 2025)

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:

  1. OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
  2. [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
  3. TMC ARB Recommendation
  4. TMC Stablecoin Recommendation

Tally Voting

For this month, a total of 1 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. These are:

  1. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program

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:

  1. Proposal [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
  2. DAO Discussion: Vote Buying Services
  3. TMC - Stablecoin Withdrawal Process
  4. [Non-Constitutional] Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order
  5. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
  6. A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum
  7. 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.):
1 Like

Title: Dispute

Username: @EventHorizonDAO

Reason for dispute: Event Horizon should not be disqualified as it voted ABSTAIN by equally distributing its votes explicitly to conform to these requirements without altering the vote outcome.

Hey @EventHorizonDAO it was a mistake. Sorry for that! And thanks for flagging it !!

Fixed it :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’d like to be considered for Bonus points for the work on DAO Watch.
I put in 8-10 hours to get to this point.

I facilitated @CryptoSI’s entry to Arbitrum DAO with DAO Watch and cohosting 2 podcasts.

CryptoSi had the idea to run some Arbitrum specific podcasts, I had a call with him and we honed the idea to host proposal authors and interesting delegates in Arbitrum and walkthrough in depth their proposals and other discussions in Arbitrum.

There is a gap right now between writing on the Forum, short status updates in the GRC calls, or short 5 minute segments on the Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call. DAO Watch allows us to go indepth with proposers and delegates.

With CryptoSi, I provided orientation to Arbitrum, honed this format, helped scout and suggested 2 people to interview so far.

  1. @cupojoseph we covered
    :small_blue_diamond: The proposed 500M ARB Builder Appreciation Airdrop
    :small_blue_diamond: The OPCO entity and its potential impact on DAO operations
    :small_blue_diamond: Joseph’s bold idea for a delegation decay mechanism
    :small_blue_diamond: The state of onboarding and incentives for new builders
    :small_blue_diamond: And a look ahead at Nerite , a native Arbitrum stablecoin

Podcast Details:

  1. @paulofonseca

We covered:

  • Arbitrum’s new vision for the future pros and cons
  • Paulo’s newly launched governance tooling app: @proposalsapp
  • the role of governance tooling to shape change
  • organisational design in and between DAOs, Foundations, Labs, Service Providers and individual contributors

Podcast Details: Introducing DAO Watch – A Deep Dive into Arbitrum Governance - #24 by KlausBrave

In both cases we are providing a service deep diving on proposals that allow a lot of nuance to be explored, as well as hero’ing two Arbitrum Builders.
The depth we went into in the latest podcast with Paulo helped him get to the clarity and prep to inform writing the most liked comment on the new Vision post here: A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum - #40 by paulofonseca

I think this format has provided benefit so far and has strong potential.

8 Likes

This link is pointing to March Feedback, can you update the link to the April Data.

1 Like

Yes, I have thoroughly enjoyed learning a lot about this DAO in depth while researching for, producing and co-hosting this podcast. I had originally planned to also become a Delegate, but I wont be doing that while the new vision looms in the air.

I of course see great value in this sort of medium for discussion, idea exploration and idea challenge. I’m hoping to continue with this series and have even more discussion and hopefully get some support from the main twitter account.

Fingers crossed we can get someone from @Entropy to have discussions on their opinions for the current proposals and show what they’re working on. Mostly in the interests of balance. Which I think is the main reason why this initiative should be supported, especially with the new direction being announced.

1 Like

To be honest, I still don’t understand how this system is rewarding.
I have made several comments which weren’t included and that is totally fine, as most of them are simply some questions or feedback for a proposal or any other kind of post.

But how is this supposed to be encouraging?
Two of my comments had been taken into account for the DIP of April. But because Seed thinks one comment isn’t as good as the other one my points are getting dragged down, thus making me ineligible for the DIP.
So should I rather do a banger comment and leave it, cause that would have made me eligible if the first wasn’t considered important enough?
Or can I ask/demand that the first comment should be also not considered please cause then I would have received 16 instead of 12.8 points in total giving me 3.2 points more to my current 62.22 which would have resulted in 65,42 instead.

I do agree that quality over quantity is important, but for the future this will simply lead for me to only try to make one very good comment and delete the rest to game this system. Giving me enough points to be eligible and basically delivering nothing important or worthy to the DAOs proposals. Now imagine others will follow this, we would see less and less engagement and everyone one trying to get that one hit comment and thats it or people simply leaving the DAO, which I am currently considering as this is the third month without compensation and I do rely on it. So its better for me spending my time elsewhere. Which would be sad for the DAO and myself as well.

5 Likes

Hello @SEEDGov,

I’ve attended the following calls which I believe were not recorded:

  • Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call (GRC) (April 9th)

Yeah, this is a bit problematic edge case. It may lead to people not wanting to post a potentially quality reply, because they would not know if it’s of high enough quality to not drag their score down.

Maybe there could be a rule which would cover this particular edge case. So in case some reply dragged the score of a user down, and the user missed the 65% threshold because of this, then the reply can be disregarded and not counted in the score.

What do you think @SEEDGov? A special rule which would apply only in the case of not reaching 65%, so that people are not afraid to make replies.

1 Like

Just to clarify, this is how the process works in practice.

The issue in this case is that the calculations were incorrect. The delegate actually received a score of 13.44 for the DF parameter, not 12.8 (which was likely a UI issue based on the screenshot he shared). The 13.44 score includes a 1.05x multiplier.


With that in mind, if we had only counted the best comment, he would have received a total score of 64.81. This means that taking the second comment into account did not exclude him from the incentives.

The rationale during the assessment was:
“Okay, this single comment alone is not enough to qualify, so we’ll proceed to review the remaining comments since doing so causes no harm.”

From there, the intention behind validating a second comment was to acknowledge additional meaningful contributions, providing the delegate with relevant feedback for future rounds.

It’s important to note that if — based on our criteria — the top-scoring comment had been enough, we wouldn’t have considered the second one in order to avoid any potential negative impact. (This approach can be seen in other cases, such as JoJo’s, where other interesting contributions were made, but we chose to score only the top two.)

It’s important to note that this represents my personal response and not the final word from SEEDGov as the DIP Program Manager.

1 Like

I have started gathering VP and wanted 2 ask if the bonus points could be awarded retroactively if a delegate would qualify for the following month? Also had an involvment in ETH bucharest and also organized everything around handling the merch. Thanks

1 Like

How is this calculated could you please elaborate? Im getting 65.58 taking into account the 1.05x Multiplier that was missing in my initial calculation.
Wouldn’t the formula be like this?
{651716FB-31CB-42A8-A6EB-EABBF74821E9}

5+4+5+5+1=20
20/50x1.05x40=16.8

Which means on top of my current 62.22 I would get 3.36 (16.8-13.44) more thus receiving in total 65.58. Or am I missing something completely here?

1 Like

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying!

1 Like

With 1 comment you don’t get the 1.05x multiplier. So the final DF score would be 16 instead of 16.8, then you may have a small difference related to the BP obtained from calls (so final TP score would be 64.81 instead of 64.78)

To expand: 16 - 13.44 = 2.56 * 1.0125 (BP from calls) = 2.592 + 62.22 = 64.812

1 Like

errr… this is a clear case of selection bias @MinistroDolar

The criteria for considering a comment valid or invalid should be the exact same criteria for all delegates, all of the time, and not be conditional to each delegate particular situation in each particular moment.

Then, all the valid comments should be scored according to the rubric.

The PMs can’t be selectively choosing which comments, from which delegates, at which time, are considered to count towards their average for the DF score (which is 40% of the total score) or not.

I think the criteria should be that, all comments are valid, and then there are cases where the comment should be considered invalid.

@SEEDGov Could you please clarify what are the criteria to classify a delegate comment as invalid to not count towards the DF metric in the DIP? And can you confirm that those criteria are being applied exactly the same to all delegates at the same time, or not?

1 Like

Title: Dispute
Username: Tane

We extend our sincere appreciation for @SEEDGov’s dedicated efforts in managing and evolving the Delegate Incentive Program. The program plays a vital role in fostering active and thoughtful participation within the Arbitrum DAO, and we are committed to contributing constructively to its success.

Following the release of the April 2025 Delegate Feedback results, we have undertaken a careful review of our contributions in conjunction with the DIP v1.6 guidelines. In this context, we respectfully request a review and reconsideration of the evaluation for specific comments, believing they may warrant a different assessment.

Dispute 1. Comment on “Proposal Non constitutional]: Top up for Hackathon Continuation Program”

Reason for Dispute: This comment articulated our support for the proposed top-up, specifically addressing the potential impact of a funding shortfall on program continuity and developer engagement. We believe this input provided substantive reasoning relevant to the proposal’s objectives. Upon reviewing the criteria for “invalid” comments as outlined in the DIP v1.6 FAQ (p.13), we find that this contribution appears to meet the standards for a valid, scorable piece of feedback. We kindly request a review of this comment and its reconsideration for inclusion in our Delegate Feedback score for April 2025.

Evidence: Proposal [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program - #8 by Tane

Dispute 2. Comment on “DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)”

Reason for Dispute: Our input on this proposal acknowledged its comprehensive and well-structured nature, while also offering perspectives on strategic alignment and potential ecosystem impact, thereby aiming to contribute to a robust and multi-faceted discussion. We believe this comment, too, represents a valid contribution under the DIP v1.6 framework. We would be grateful if this comment could also be reviewed and reconsidered for inclusion in our April 2025 Delegate Feedback evaluation.

Evidense: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #9 by Tane

Dispute 3. Re-evaluation of Score for Comment on “DAO Discussion: Vote Buying Services”

Reason for Dispute: We were encouraged by the positive acknowledgment from @SEEDGov regarding this comment, which stated:

This month, we would like to highlight this comment made in a key discussion on DAO Discussion: Vote Buying Services. Although it was posted relatively “late” in the thread (after around 30 comments), the main suggestion introduced new information to the discussion and was supported by references to experiences in other governance systems.(delegate feedback report)

Despite this encouraging feedback, the comment received an overall score of 26/50, with “Relevance” specifically scored at 5/10 and “Depth of Analysis” received 7/10.
We believe this assessment may not fully capture the comment’s value, particularly concerning its “Depth of Analysis” and “Relevance” Additionally, we have found some comments received more than 9 points on “Timing”, while they were posted later than 10 days after the original proposals were posted. Thus, it is hard to believe our comment particularly missed the “timing”, either.

This proposal of a concrete mechanism, supported by an external precedent, aimed to directly address the core challenge of vote buying by suggesting a tangible path forward. Such an effort to introduce unique, actionable solutions, demonstrates significant “Depth of Analysis” in exploring solutions and high “Relevance” to the critical issues at hand. We respectfully request a re-evaluation of this comment’s score, particularly for “Relevance” and “Depth of Analysis,” to better reflect its acknowledged contribution and alignment with the DIP v1.6 rubric’s emphasis on impactful and well-reasoned feedback.

Evidence: DAO Discussion: Vote Buying Services - #30 by Tane

Concluding remarks on evaluation transparency and program enhancement

We appreciate the inherent complexities in objectively evaluating diverse delegate contributions. As dedicated participants in the Arbitrum ecosystem, we offer the following observations in the spirit of constructive collaboration, hoping they may contribute to the continued refinement of the DIP.

For delegates earnestly striving to enhance the quality and impact of their governance participation, greater granularity and transparency in the evaluation framework would be exceptionally valuable. Specifically, further clarity on the following aspects could empower delegates to better align their efforts with the program’s objectives:

  • Assessment of “Impact”: A more detailed understanding of the specific factors, evidence, and weighting considered when evaluating a comment’s “Impact on Decision-Making.”
  • Calibration of subjective scores: Enhanced insight into how “Timing” and “Clarity & Communication” scores are precisely adjusted relative to “Relevance,” “Depth of Analysis,” and “Impact,” as alluded to in the DIP v1.6 FAQ (p.13). Understanding this interplay more deeply would help delegates strategize their communication.
  • Benchmarks for “Depth of Analysis”: Clearer benchmarks, or perhaps illustrative examples, for varying levels of “Depth of Analysis.” This would provide a more tangible guide for delegates on how to achieve higher ratings by demonstrating sophisticated understanding and reasoning.

We believe that such enhancements would not only improve the perceived objectivity of the evaluation process but also serve as a powerful educational tool for all delegates.

Thank you for considering our perspectives. We remain committed to supporting the Arbitrum DAO through diligent and thoughtful governance participation and are available for any further clarification you may require.

4 Likes

Dispute
Ignas

Reason for Dispute:

I would like to appeal the scoring of the following comments, which I believe contributed meaningful value to the discussion and should be reconsidered:

1. Comment on this proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)

I’m unsure why this comment wasn’t awarded any points.
I raised concerns about the proposed budget and offered specific suggestions for improvement. I also proposed partnering with other projects to co fund initiatives, thereby reducing the financial burden on the DAO.

I believe this added value to the conversation.

2. Comment on this proposal: A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum

While my forum comment was brief, my team extended the discussion by publishing a well researched thread on X to help spread the new Arbitrum vision to a broader audience, including users who may not actively follow the forum: Pink Brains Post.

I believe this type of off platform contribution warrants recognition through bonus points.

3. Comment on the discussion: Vote Buying Services

I don’t believe my comment deserved such a low score. My intent was to shift the discussion toward a more structural and long term solution: redesigning tokenomics to realign incentives for ARB holders and reduce reliance on lobbying mechanisms.

I suggested exploring staking mechanisms or veTokenomics via Curve as potential models, not as a detailed implementation, but as a strategic direction to broaden the conversation.

Thank you for your time.

Dispute
cp0x

There are several controversial assessments of my comments:

  1. [ Arbitrum Obrit ] - In-Chain SQL Database for Arbitrum Orbit - #13 by cp0x
    I think the rating of the impact 1 is incorrect, as well as the depth of analysis of 3
  • to analyze this proposal, I went through several similar tasks from other chains, where similar ideas were expressed over the past few years. Taking into account the results of the implementation of the DB in the chain, I expressed the opinion that it is possible to implement and everything will be fine for the developer, but it will be very expensive for the user due to very expensive Select queries
  • taking into account this analysis, as well as the need to work with this database only within the Arbitrum and Orbit, I concluded that such a solution would not be very correct
    Considering the depth of the analysis and conclusions, I believe that my rating of the 1st chain should be significantly higher.
  1. [DIP v1.5]Delegate Incentive Program Questions and Feedback - #35 by cp0x
    I think this comment should be taken into account and given a high score
  • I did an analysis for different delegates to make sure that the comment points are taken into account on the arithmetic mean
    With this in mind, I proposed a model of a situation in which this would have a bad effect not only on a specific delegate, but also on the overall system: after all, if you are punished for a bad comment, then everyone will be afraid to write one.
  • Also, I not only did the analysis, but also proposed a solution to this problem to avoid the human factor
  • Tane also agreed with me, who mentioned me in his comment about calculating points
    -Despite the answer that such a system suits SEEDGov, they still did a good analysis of various solutions, including mine.
    In this regard, I think my comment should be highly appreciated and taken into account.
    And I still think that my proposal was better than what is currently used, because now the selection of worthwhile comments is done by a person, and the human factor should be reduced
  1. [Non-Constitutional] Service Provider Utilisation Framework - #14 by cp0x
    I also think this comment should be rated highly
  • I analyzed the proposal and compared it with the previous one
  • I pointed out the discrepancy between the requested funds for the project of 100,000 and the levels that exceed 100,000
  • I also proposed my vision of audit levels, in accordance with other DAOs, as well as relying on DAO grants, where QuestBook is already operating in a similar way
    This way we could save time for small projects that do not require a lot of funds for audits, but the analysis of these projects will take up the time of all the council experts
  1. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #7 by cp0x
    I believe that my comment should be highly appreciated.
    I have conducted a large analysis of this program, I will not additionally indicate all 7 points that I touched upon in my comment, however, this is one of my most important comments, where I analyzed both the proposal itself and previous Arbitrum grants, offered my ideas based on projects that showed positive results in past grants
    I also answered questions from other delegates, which can be considered a continuation of my first comment, because the cost seemed overpriced to others. I indicated and compared it with other grants and showed that this is significantly less and perhaps it is worth increasing the amount for incentives

  2. Also, I participated in all the calls, I was late for the monthly one, but I still stayed there for about 1 hour, which I think is worth considering

Title: Dispute
Username: Zeptimus

I’m submitting a formal dispute regarding the April 2025 DIP scoring for my delegate address 0x3ef1b0db4d10d2e3ce06699c0bd4ef0aaf897614. Two specific posts I made were not scored at all, despite offering original and timely contributions to key governance discussions:

  1. Comment on “Builders’ Voices Needed”
  2. Comment on Gabriel’s SOS submission

These comments were early, informed, and aligned with the rubric’s criteria for “presence in discussions.” They added value by expressing governance-relevant feedback, engaging directly with proposal authors, and highlighting considerations not previously mentioned.

If these kinds of contributions are considered invalid, I’d appreciate a clear explanation of what exactly disqualified them. Are such posts viewed as having no value whatsoever to the conversation? Would they have been better left unsaid? Because from my perspective, and likely the broader community’s that’s hard to justify.

I’ve been an active participant, often contributing quickly and consistently. While depth is important, so is relevance, responsiveness, and thoughtful presence. This program seems to undervalue that.

I’ve been actively reading every proposal, thoughtfully considering each one, and voting on all of them, and that alone is a significant amount of work. Mindful, informed voting is the core responsibility of a delegate, and I’ve taken that role seriously. It’s disappointing to see that consistent, foundational participation seems to be undervalued. I would also genuinely appreciate clearer, more objective rules. This level of subjectivity creates confusion and frustration, and I imagine it’s just as unpleasant for those administering the program as it is for those trying to meet its expectations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

2 Likes

Title: Dispute
Username: paulofonseca

I would like for the following comments of mine to be considered valid and scored for DF:

I would also like to ask for a rescoring of this comment of mine, since it was the first one in the thread that offered the idea that fighting vote buying services is a fruitless endeavor and explained why. So much so, that after my comment, other delegates pointed out the same argument.

I would also like to ask for this comment of mine to be considered valid, retroactively since it was posted on March 29th, since I believe it ended up influencing the election results for the OpCo. OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections - #5 by paulofonseca

I would also like for this dispute of March to be answered by @SEEDGov [DIP v1.6] Delegate Incentive Program Results (March 2025) - #20 by paulofonseca

Regarding the Bonus points, I would like to point out that the BP awarded to multiple people because of ETH Bucharest is not proportional to what was actually done on the ground, at least from my point of view. Namely:

  • @TempeTechie and @Tekr0x.eth had very similar involvement, from my PoV, and a 2x difference is unfair. Maybe more like a 1.5x difference would make more sense, especially because the event for the run had 0 attendees.
  • Denys from @lobbyfi and @zer8 were also present at the booth and helped quite a bit, I think they should get BP as well.
  • My involvement also included managing the Arbitrum hackathon track in several ways. Supporting both ChrisCo and Alex, the hackathon track managers, and also mentoring and advising the hackathon teams. The most important work I did was to convince hackathon teams and individual hackaers, to participate in Arbitrum bounties, and we had 9 teams, out of 30 total, that did exactly that. So I believe the difference in BP between me and L2BEAT should be bigger than 1.5x.
2 Likes