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:
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.