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

[Curia]

Title: Dispute
Name: Curia

We’d like to thank @SEEDGov for their efforts in reviewing the April 2025 Delegate Feedback results. However, after carefully reviewing our contribution, we respectfully request that our specific comments be reviewed and reconsidered.

1. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #23 by Curia

Although this feedback was counted in the program, we believe we should have received a higher score because we suggested additional rubrics that other DAOs use in their incentive programs and advised DRIP to adopt a similar approach to make it more robust and transparent.

We also highlighted the accountability gap and offered the following example solution, which we believe illustrates how incentives should be distributed to the selected projects.

@Curia

Regarding accountability, how will we know if a individual project is underperforming? Relying too heavily on subjective evaluation could lead to inconsistent outcomes and make it harder for the community to assess impact. We think one potential solution worth exploring is tying incentives directly to predefined milestones and performance targets. This model would require projects to clearly articulate their goals, timelines, and expected outputs up front, and only receive funding incrementally as they meet those benchmarks. Not only would this create a more objective framework for measuring progress, but it could also help de-risk funding decisions and ensure that resources are being allocated to initiatives that are actively delivering value. Adopting a milestone-based approach could strengthen accountability, reduce waste, and make it easier to course-correct when things aren’t working as expected.

Finally, we flagged a critical marketing concern, many incentive programs fail or ignore this side entirely. We believe integrating a clear outreach and visibility strategy into DRIP’s roadmap will make onboarding smoother and drive stronger engagement, which is essential for the program’s success.

2. Proposal [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program - #3 by Curia

This feedback wasn’t counted in the DIP, even though we believe it should have been because we clearly outlined how the proposal could drive impact and offered actionable guidance. Though brief, our suggestion provided a solid contribution to strengthening the proposal.