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

[paulofonseca]

Responding to the questions around the infamous podcast episode

@SEEDGov

@PauloFonseca, are you in a position to confirm that this podcast had a significant influence on the depth and clarity of your later comment?

Sir, yes, sir! Talking it out in this podcast clarified my thinking in my comment. For example, I re-listened to the podcast episode to write my comment on the vision thread.

@KlausBrave

Let’s hear from Paulo. @paulofonseca - can you weigh in on the impact the DAO Watch podcast had on you, the DAO, and its timing? Lets wait for this.

Yes, it had a lot of impact. That’s why I posted just the podcast link in the thread sooner, before I made my full comment above. I think that if I hadn’t done the podcast episode, I probably wouldn’t have made my post.

Addressing the feedback on my disputes

@SEEDGov

we do not see that this piece of information you bring into the discussion in your comment has a significant impact on the DAO.

Well, of course it has impact. It matters a lot if the creation of the new vision proposed by the AF was done in the open and collaboratively, or behind close doors, like this post of mine publicly proves it was.

@SEEDGov

a member of the Arbitrum Foundation can be seen stating that the matter did not warrant going through the usual governance process. Therefore, no comments in this thread have received any scoring.

Honestly, this argument doesn’t make sense and is inconsistent with previous scoring. The criteria to decide if a forum post should be awarded under DF or not isn’t “the matter did not warrant going through the usual governance process” since there have been plenty of topics in the past that would never have gone through the usual governance process and were awarded under DF.

@SEEDGov

We understand your point; indeed, since the comment was not very deep or detailed, the reason for its inclusion lies precisely in the fact that other delegates used the same argument later on.

Even if this is true, for sure this comment of mine deserves a higher score on the Timing rubric, because it was indeed the first one mentioning that argument. The fact that it was scored equally with 3 points out of 10, for Relevance, Depth of Analysis, and Timing, shows that the scoring is not fair, under your own argument.

@SEEDGov

It is also important to note that without the Bonus Points awarded this month, the compensation would have been $0 instead of $4,243.

Well, it would be crazy not to award me BP this month for ETH Bucharest. April, with the Arbitrum DAO presence at ETH Bucharest, was the month that I put in the most blood, sweat, and tears for Arbitrum DAO ever since I became a delegate in September 2024. Everybody else that was there could tell you that was the case.

@SEEDGov

since a budget and sponsorship were approved for an event without an appropriately compensated Lead to carry it out.

That’s precisely why stepping up and doing that work voluntarily, by myself and others, is worth Bonus Points. My dispute was to make the attribution of those bonus points more fair between the delegates rewarded, in relation to what happened on the ground, and you failed to address that in this response.

@SEEDGov

That said, since this is not the first time you have disputed another delegate’s scoring, we want to make it clear that we will not allow disputes to become a perverse mechanism where delegates target each other through the DIP (not saying this is your case, we just want to prevent this). For this reason, we will no longer process disputes regarding the scoring of third parties.

I’m not targeting anyone with my disputes. I’m looking for clarity as to how you guys score comments, given the enormous discrepancies and inconsistencies between scores from one delegate to another. And also the discrepancies and biases in selecting which comments are considered valid and invalid, as I pointed out previously in this thread.
Also, I believe the dispute system was initially designed so that anyone can dispute anyone’s results, even for the sake of overall fidelity and accuracy. That’s why the template for a dispute post includes the username of the targeted delegate, right?

@SEEDGov

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.):

and also in your own Notion document here:

So, if with this message you intend to change the rules of the DIP, once again arbitrarily, for what constitutes a valid dispute from delegates, by banning the ability of delegates to dispute other delegates scores, I suggest updating the DIP Bible and create a new 1.7 version of the program with that change.

@SEEDGov

Having addressed all disputes and more than four days having passed since the report submission, we hereby consider the dispute period closed.

As @KlausBrave mentioned above, the dispute period should be measured in business days, especially since you habitually post the results on Fridays or towards the end of the work week.