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.