Honestly, we don’t understand this response. Our point is that your comment does not refer to the research that you later mention in the dispute. We believe there is more depth in the dispute itself than in the disputed comment.
We also haven’t said that the analysis you carried out is not important — quite the opposite, we’re saying that it would have been positive if you had included more details of that analysis in the comment, as it’s not initially possible to determine its detail through that post.
When you ask “why are you sure that in this case there will not be the same result as last time?” along with the example “Why in the same example about wstETH all the borrowing will not go to another chain when the season ends?” that’s equivalent to asking about long-term sustainability, which is one of the issues of previous incentive programs.
In this sense, that question had already been asked by @pedrob:
We agree, but that’s not our approach — it’s Entropy’s. Our point was that, with the proposed structure, it would be difficult to get a response, given that we still don’t know the Distribution Partner.
KlausBrave
Exactly, we want to avoid double-spending since Bonus Points are only granted if there has been/will be no financial benefit for the delegate beyond the DIP.
Thanks for the clarification!
Here, beyond what the Bible says, it’s a matter of applying common sense: a contribution gains significant value from the moment it generates a tangible impact for the DAO. That’s why, on more than one occasion, we waited for initiatives such as Detox proposed by L2Beat to be approved by the DAO (the same applied to the Huddles case proposed by Paulo).
Now, the fragment you quoted says “delegates who have submitted proposals of significant impact to the DAO.” In our opinion, during April, the significant impact that is now manifest had not yet materialized.
Comments are usually not part of the Bonus Points framework. Extraordinary contributions have a different nature than feedback—there are several examples of Bonus Points granted months after an initiative’s kick-off (mentioned above, but not the only ones).
In this case, even though it wasn’t possible to know the final or total impact, we believe that:
The very act of posting a SOS could be seen as a materialized impact in the forum regarding a key discussion.
Following each SOS post, there were comments from delegates, which we can consider “impacted” by the submission since there was engagement.
Each submission also generated a SOS Discussion Call where delegates participated by asking questions and providing feedback in each case.
Effort and impact. Without those volunteers, the Arbitrum Booth would not have been possible. Naturally, they had an impact through their collaboration.
Here we believe there was a misinterpretation of our response:
We never said that we were not going to incentivize this initiative.
SEEDGov as PM never takes sides—it’s not our business whether it’s a critical voice or a voice “aligned” with entities such as AF or OCL. We never implied that one or the other is being incentivized or penalized.
We never said the value is 0, we just disagreed on the timing and needed Paulo’s response to confirm that this podcast had a significant impact on his response. It’s worth noting that this impact was stated by you in your dispute, so there was no way for us to be aware of it when evaluating your April contributions.
The fact that you find our opinion on the timing for granting points to this initiative demotivating is a pity, considering we specifically mentioned it in the report as a positive initiative in principle, but that we didn’t yet have enough elements to give it a score. This was entirely true at that time, given the reach on social media and the fact that there was only one comment from Paulo mentioning it in the forum. It’s worth clarifying that we don’t usually rely on likes in a comment, especially when most of them come from people involved in the initiative or somehow connected to the delegate in question, or from people we cannot appropriately verify. In the image you can see that of the 8 likes, 1 is yours, another is from CryptoSI, another from Andrei who is linked to Paulo via Proposals.app, and 2 others from people who do not actively participate as delegates in ArbitrumDAO / we don’t have enough references for them.
That said, only today, May 20th, 2025, SEEDGov can verify the impact that this podcast had on Paulo in a response to the vision posted by AF, which (potentially) can be considered within the Delegates’ Feedback framework. The nature of this situation requires us to first analyze Paulo’s comment (which does not pertain to the month of April) before we can fully assess the broader context. As Program Managers, it would be unfeasible for us to incorporate future events into an analysis of a past month. This is only reasonable when both of the following conditions are met:
The update takes place within the first few days of the month.
The update does not require extensive analysis.
Neither condition applies in this case, which is why we kindly ask for your understanding—otherwise, we would be setting a precedent we are not willing to uphold. It’s also important to note that we are currently processing 69 reports per month, and that number continues to grow each month.
In summary, our intention is not to demotivate you, but to be consistent with the decisions we’ve made in the past. We understand you may agree or not, but the reality is that this is a known risk since this proposal was approved, given the subjective nature of Extraordinary Contributions and Delegates’ Feedback.
We hope that now that there is greater clarity regarding the potential inclusion of this initiative for the month of May, you find motivation to continue contributing to Arbitrum DAO. It’s worth mentioning that we’ll be keeping an eye on the growth of the reach of these podcasts.
Thank you for this feedback. In practice, we do usually allow a few extra days when the dispute period overlaps with a weekend. That said, we also want to avoid delaying payments for too long.
Still, we’d like to clarify that the sentence closing the dispute period applies to new disputes only. Any disputes already posted can, of course, continue to be discussed.
danielo
Security Council elections was one of the most important Topics of the ArbitrumDAO during the months of March, April and some days of May.
Member Election Phase started April 12, and it was announced by the Arbitrum Foundation in this Forum Post.
Also, the Arbitrum Foundation Team was really vocal on the importance of the Security Council Elections during the past two months. For example, here you can find the Recording of the March 11, 2025 - Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call where SC Elections were discussed. Also, there was an overview of the candidates on March 25, 2025 - Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call (recording here). Process continued and there was also an update on the April 8, 2025 - Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call.
Also, Arbitrum Foudation team held an AMA with the Security Council Candidates. You can find that record here.
As an important note, SEEDGov as a Program Manager of the DIP also conducted a campaign for the Security Elections. With the objective of having the most amount of VP voting on the first week, we introduced a linear penalty system (similar to the one of the SC Elections) and also announced that those delegates who didn’t vote on the Security Council Elections were not going to be eligible for both April and May incentives (post can be seen here)
We’ve also posted on the Arbitrum Delegates chat two different reminders of the Mandatory Voting:
You can check that, as of today May 20, this message is still pinned in the ‘Delegate Incentive Program’ Chat.
Also, there’s a specific section of the Arbitrum Delegates Chat called ‘Security Council’ where Raam posted regular updates of the matter.
As a final note, the Security Council elections are the most important governance process within ArbitrumDAO, as the signers are responsible for safeguarding one of the Layer 2s with the highest Total Value Locked in the ecosystem. We believe the awareness and outreach efforts carried out by the Arbitrum Foundation and the DAO have been highly valuable, resulting in the election with the highest amount of Voting Power used in the history of the ecosystem. For more information on this, we recommend the Arbitrum DAO Security Council Dashboard by Entropy Advisors
Paulo Fonseca
Thank you for this clarification! It’s very helpful.
From the moment the vision was posted without any public debate on the forum, it is implied that there was no open and collaborative development beyond what may have happened behind the scenes.
We don’t believe it is inconsistent. In past months, it has been clear that both the scoring and the number of comments considered valid are lower for what we may call “secondary” topics compared to discussions that are clearly central to the DAO, such as SOS, the AF Vision, or the DRIP.
Timing and Clarity & Communication scores are adjusted relative to Relevance, Depth of Analysis, and Impact on Decision-Making. This is not new and was clarified months ago, as stated in the Bible and here:
And we agree. That’s why we were quite flexible and assigned you the highest aggregated score (45 points) ever granted for a single initiative in the history of the program.
We don’t believe we failed to address this. As we’ve previously mentioned, the program is trying to fill a gap, which makes it inherently imperfect and means there won’t always be a perfect correlation between the scores assigned to participants and the actual work performed.
As we’ve already responded, there are no such discrepancies or biases. All delegates were evaluated equally and under the same criteria.
There are two points to clarify here:
The template includes a username field as a formal requirement — that doesn’t mean the intention was to enable disputes of other delegates’ scores.
Disputing another delegate’s score only made sense when the program was limited to rewarding up to 50 delegates. In that context, if a delegate with TP > 65 were at risk of not being rewarded due to others receiving higher scores, a case could be made for disputing another’s scoring. Given that this scenario is far from the current reality, we don’t believe it’s necessary to allow disputes against other delegates’ scores — especially when JoJo’s score doesn’t prevent you from receiving compensation. If that changes in the future, we’ll be happy to reassess this decision.