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

DAO Programs & Initiatives Delegate Incentives Program (DIP)
1

February Participants

For the February iteration of the program, 72 participants enrolled, 68 of whom met the requirements to qualify.

You can see the full list here.

Parameters Breakdown

Snapshot Voting

During the month, there were a total of 5 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. These are the proposals that were considered:

  1. Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
  2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
  3. Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
  4. Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
  5. Arbitrum Audit Program

Tally Voting

For this month, a total of 3 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. It’s important to clarify that proposals with the tag [CANCELED] are not counted for DIP. These are the proposals that were considered:

  1. Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
  2. OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
  3. Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3

It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in February were counted.

Delegate Feedback

In the Karma Dashboard you can find the detailed breakdown of your Delegate Feedback.

687×402 20.6 KB

Presence in Discussion Multiplier

As approved in the Tally proposal, the Presence in Discussion parameter acts as a multiplier that measures the presence and participation of delegates throughout the month.

For February, 11 proposals were considered:

  1. [Constitutional] Increase resilience to outside attackers by updating DAO parameters to not count ‘Abstain’ votes in Quorum.
  2. [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop
  3. [Non-constitutional][RFC] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps
  4. Arbitrum Audit Program
  5. Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
  6. GCP Council Salary Updates, Ops Improvements, and Transparency Cadence
  7. GMC Preferred Choices for 7,500 ETH RFP
  8. Jumper x Merkl // MAGA 2025 [Make-Arbitrum-Great-Again]
  9. Proposal: Not missing the AI train
  10. Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
  11. TMC’s Proposed Allocations

To get the multiplier a delegate needed:

For 5% (1.05) = At least 3 comments (>25%)

For 10% (1.10) = At least 6 comments (>50%)

For 20% (1.20) = At least 9 comments (>75%)

It is important to note that we considered @JamesKBH feedback, so for the multiplier calculation, if the delegate made a valid comment on that topic/thread in the previous month, it was considered in the current month. In this case, the only thread that started in January was [Non-constitutional][RFC] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps.

Delegate Feedback Reporting

We kept working on our Delegate Feedback Reporting, This month’s reports includes more granularity as we expanded on the analysis of each delegate. This is still a work in progress as we expect to keep upgrading these reports in the future.

You can find February Reports here.

February Results

You can see the dashboard with the results implemented by Karma here.

Of all the participating delegates, 24 were eligible to receive compensation.

  • Tier 1: 1 delegate. (4.16%)
  • Tier 2: 9 delegates. (37.50%)
  • Tier 3: 14 delegates. (58.33%)
Delegate TIER PUSD
L2Beat 1 6,551.65
paulofonseca 2 4,752.36
Jojo 2 4,694.49
CastleCapital 2 4,591.81
Reverie 2 4,585.20
BlockworksResearch 2 4,454.40
TempeTechie 2 4,432.44
pedrob 2 4,356.98
GFXLabs 2 4,355.82
Karpatkey 2 4,213.65
jameskbh 3 3,214.15
Areta 3 3,195.00
Tekr0x.eth 3 3,167.01
Curia 3 3,120.24
Lampros DAO 3 3,095.77
Camelot 3 3,086.00
Vertex Protocol 3 3,080.22
Gauntlet 3 3,076.50
cp0x 3 3,066.71
AranaDigital 3 3,055.00
mrjackalop.eth (DanielO) 3 3,046.48
Griff 3 3,034.48
ultra 3 3,010.95
Bob-Rossi 3 3,007.20

The total cost destined for the delegates this month will be $90,244.50.

You can also check our Public Table to see the detailed breakdown of delegates’ results.

Payments

We track all payment data for greater transparency in our Payment Distribution Thread.

Bonus Points

This month two delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their remarkable contributions to Arbitrum DAO.

@Vertex_Protocol has been awarded 5 Bonus Points due to their exemplary contribution by reviewing all multisigs managed by the MSS and identifying that not all were delegating to the Exclude Address. Given that this involved approximately 90M ARB, this finding had a direct impact on the quorum requirements for the DAO—an especially critical issue given the challenges in reaching quorum, particularly for Constitutional proposals. In these cases, the discovery translates to 4.5M fewer ARBs needed to meet the quorum.

@PauloFonseca has been awarded 20 Bonus Points due to two contributions:

  • ETH Bucharest Contribution: Paulo has made highly valuable contributions toward the execution of the ETH Bucharest event. After verifying that his engagement with the initiative was voluntary and extended over at least February and March, we decided to award him 30 points (the maximum), distributed equally across both months.
  • Revival of the ArbitrumDAO Telegram Group: As many may recall, the previous ArbitrumDAO Telegram group was unexpectedly deleted in early February. Paulo demonstrated proactivity by recreating the group and ensuring that all relevant stakeholders were included. For this effort, we have assigned 5 Bonus Points.

Additionally, Bonus Points were awarded to several delegates for their attendance at the “Arbitrum Governance Report Calls” and the “Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call.”

  • For the GRC calls, 1,25% BP will be awarded for each attendance.
  • For the Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance calls, 1.25% BP will be awarded for attending each call.

This month, 1 bi-weekly and 2 GRC calls took place, with a maximum possible score of 3.75%. In total, 44 delegates received Bonus Points for attending the calls.

New Members of the Program

We have 5 new participants who are willing to be part of the program next month. Note that starting this month, we will have 1:1 mandatory calls with each new applicant.

  • Klaus Brave
  • Agneslfg (Call Pending)
  • Bertani (Call Pending)
  • Zeptimus (Call Pending)
  • Zenithiaa (Call Pending)

[image] Remember, you can apply anytime.

[CALL TO ACTION!] Dispute Period

As stated in the proposal, delegates have a timeframe to express their disagreement with the results presented by the Incentive Program Administrator.

To raise a dispute, delegates should do so by posting a message in the forum using the following template:

Title: Dispute

User name

Reason for dispute (please detail)

2 Likes
2

The number of delegates has been reduced by half this month.The expenses have also decreased significantly.The new rules are full of hostility, especially regarding how scores are evaluated and which discussions are randomly included—it’s a mystery. Participating in conference calls is not recorded and does not earn any points. I am concerned about these people’s competence. Can the fixed monthly expense of 23,250 USD be reduced?

1 Like
3

Hey @newze !

We’ll address point by point:

“How scores are evaluated” → There is a rubric used to assess contributions each month. The details of this methodology can be found in the Bible V1.6. Additionally, each delegate receives an individual monthly report, where we provide insights (if applicable) on their contributions.

It would be helpful to know which of your contributions you believe should have received a score.

“Which discussions are randomly included” → We would like to clarify that the discussions included in the Presence in Discussions Multiplier do not affect the eligibility of comments. Any comment in any forum discussion is eligible for scoring if it meets the parameters outlined in our evaluation methodology.

Additionally, the discussions included in this parameter are those that had activity during the month, based on the following factor:

And this one:

“Participating in conference calls is not recorded and does not earn any points” → On the contrary, participation is tracked using an app, and the data is publicly available in the February Framework DIP v1.6 published in this thread.

You can also find the records here:

Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call: [Link]

Governance Report Call (GRC) - 7/2: [Link]

Governance Report Call (GRC) - 5/2: [Link]

We couldn’t find your name as “newze” or “Ze New” in the records. Please let us know if you used a different nickname.

About the following statement:

We understand that the changes introduced in version 1.6 result in a framework that makes it more challenging to qualify for compensation. Which might end in some delegates being angry about the results of February. It’s important to clarify that SEEDGov takes very seriously the responsibility of evaluating the more than 60 delegates participating in the program, dedicating specific time to analyze each delegate’s performance.

The evaluations are based on individual contributions within the broader context of the DAO, as well as the relevance and impact of each contribution in specific discussions.

Finally, don’t forget that there’s a dispute window, so please feel free to complete the template:

4

Dispute

Larva

My feedback on [Non-Constitutional:
Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program] inspired many delegates, why does it invalid?

5

Dispute

Tané

We would like to get clarifications on two of our comments, which are not scored as “delegate feedback”.

While it’s a rationale communication comment and ideally better being done before the proposal on Snapshot, we have made critical feedback on the program. A similar comment is at least evaluated with some scores.

Similar to the first one as it’s a rationale communication comment, we asked for some clarifications that were later addressed by the author (and we also made recommendations).

Thanks for your consideration in advance!

6

Dispute
Ignas

  1. I joined the GRC on February 7 but was not counted for the bonus points. Please check again, I have a screenshot here

  2. I’d also like clarification on 3 of my comments that were not scored as “delegate feedback”:

Thank you!

7

This is not a dispute but a general question.
How can I determine which proposal will be included in each months results?
Like for exmaple the Arbitrum Audit Program was posted in January but included into February.

Im just trying to better understand and also update my personal files I have created to track proposals and the DIP for each month.
A short explanation would be appreciated.

Thank you

8

Title: Dispute

User name: jameskbh

Reason for dispute: my comment on Jumper x Merkl proposal led to several changes in the proposal (rules for receiving the incentives, using MSS, etc), but it was rewarded only with “4” in the impact column.

9

Larva

Hey!

As an internal policy, no action related to the DIP itself is incentivized. This has always been the case, and you can verify it as we have not even considered votes related to the program within the framework.

Tane

Federico’s comment ultimately contains an important suggestion based on their experience running similar programs, which we believe enriches the discussion.

The rationale you provided can be considered in-depth and contains a suggestion (although partially mentioned by @JuanRah):

“The program could evolve from a one-year initiative into a continuous support model. The allocated budget in this proposal could be reviewed after an initial six-month phase and then reused as needed.”

We have decided to assign some scoring to this comment, as you expanded JuanRah’s suggestion and demonstrated sufficient context when elaborating on the rationale.

In this case, the comment is mainly limited to follow-up questions. As we have mentioned before, this is not inherently bad, but it might be not enough to receive scoring (unless the question is particularly insightful or has an extraordinary impact).

It is important to note that obtaining scoring is challenging in a proposal like ArbOS Version 40 Callisto unless the delegate has a deep technical background and can provide observations aligned with that expertise. As can be seen in most comments, delegates generally do not have much to add beyond necessary due diligence questions before voting.

On the other hand, regarding the recommendations you mention—are you referring to this other comment? If so, it was posted just eight hours ago.

Ignas

In the image, we can see that the discussion is about the thread “AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep.” Considering that the Snapshot vote on Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action was part of the Agenda for Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call on February 11 (and was not included in the agendas of the GRC meetings on February 5 or 7), it is very likely that the screenshot belongs to the February 11 call rather than the GRC on February 7.

As an additional note, in your other open tab, the text “January 28, 2025 - Open Discussion” can be partially read, further suggesting that the screenshot may not correspond to the date you mentioned.

As said above:

As an internal policy, no action related to the DIP itself is incentivized. This has always been the case, and you can verify it as we have not even considered votes related to the program within the framework.

The direction of your vote is not something we take into account when evaluating a rationale.

Regarding the budget, the fact that many delegates raised the same concern before you is precisely why we cannot assign scoring for it—insights must be unique and original.

On your last point, the Arbitrum Foundation already provided clarification in the initial comments:

The $100K per project functions as an estimate, meaning there is no commitment to spending that amount on each audit.

While the suggestion is constructive, note that it was previously mentioned by other delegates.

Also the thread in question is more about forming a working group rather than launching an airdrop:

We have noticed that many comments have overlooked this detail, which was clarified multiple times by the proposer.

Anyway, while reviewing your evaluation, we noticed that we didn’t apply the Presence in Discussions Multiplier (1.05x in your case) so your score has been updated.

EzR3aL

We refer you to a previous response that may be useful:

Now, two clarifications:

  • The discussions included in the Presence in Discussions Multiplier do not affect the eligibility of comments. Any comment in any forum discussion is eligible for scoring if it meets the parameters outlined in our evaluation methodology. This means that your comment can receive a score even if it was not made in one of the 11 proposals included in the multiplier.

  • The Arbitrum Audit Program thread was created on February 6:

    1600×842 136 KB

JamesKBH

You’re absolutely right. We have updated the impact score to 7 in alignment with the other parameters.

1 Like
10

Title: Dispute

@Argonaut

Reason for dispute: Hello, we have some differences regarding how our comments have been evaluated.

It has been mentioned that our comments tend to only show a stance and not provide feedback. However, in this case, we have given feedback on the proposal and even generated debate.

Additionally, we have followed the discussion on the proposal and participated in it again.

In that last comment, we have continued providing feedback on the proposal—perhaps not in the most proper way (by asking questions)—but we believe that penalizing this with zero points does not seem fair.

This comment has substance, depth, and clear arguments. Plus, we’re adding value to the decision-making process by pointing out the downsides of the proposal, especially in how it introduces governance risk.

11

Title: Dispute

User name: cp0x

  1. Communication Rationale has now been removed from the calculation, i.e. -10 points and they are not taken into account anywhere?
    I am asking because I wrote all my voting justifications in my thread so as not to duplicate this information in the proposed thread, but apparently this is no longer taken into account in the points calculation
    Am I right in understanding that now it is necessary to duplicate this information in the proposed thread to get points for it?

  2. Comparing the points of different delegates, I see that the Timing is calculated in an unknown way. I wrote my feedback in most cases before the delegates who received a higher score for it. In the proposal and in the changes, there are no other criteria for this parameter except time. Please explain this.

  3. In the commentary Arbitrum Audit Program I was the first to speak out about the need for more DAO representatives for this committee, which ultimately affected the amended proposal, which included more DAO representatives. However, my impact was estimated at 1 point. Why?

  4. It is unclear how the impact is calculated for one proposal if two comments are taken into account. I have two comments with an impact of 3 and 2, so I get 2.5. That is, if I hadn’t written the second comment, I would have gotten more. I’m sure it shouldn’t be like that. Either count by the larger impact (it actually was), or add the second one to the larger impact, with some coefficient.

1 Like
12

Title: Dispute

Username: web3citizenxyz

Reason for dispute: Comments scored in DF

Hello, SeedGov, we’d like some clarity around why some comments have not been included.

  • It is our understanding that voting rationale comments even if given in our own communication thread do count towards scoring. Is that so? We find this way to be the most clear and concise way to communicate to those that delegate to us.
  • Connected to our point above (if they do count in this new v1.6), our general feedback in personal dip reports says we “lack depth, or clear arguments” and recommend including well-reasoned arguments. We’d argue that comments such as these rationale for changing our stance on OpCo and rationale for audit program contain extended well reasoned arguments showing our in depth perspective highlighting what we do or don’t agree with and how we arrived to our stance. Even non-rationale and short comments like this one do convey our arguments and stance. We’d like clarity around this.

Thank you for your time.

13

Argonaut

Hey! @Argonaut

This particular case was one where we debated whether to assign points or not. After reviewing your comments again, we believe you did contribute constructively to the discussion, although there are some aspects to consider:

  • As mentioned before, the thread in question is primarily about forming a working group rather than launching an airdrop itself:
  • Some suggestions, such as using the funds to attract liquidity, had already been raised by other delegates.
  • The impact of the rest of the suggestions is relative since, as we noted, the proposal is focused on establishing a working group to define these parameters rather than setting them in this proposal itself, as your comments seem to suggest.

That said, we want to remain consistent. Given that you intended to contribute constructively to the discussion—and you did highlight some interesting points—we have decided to assign some scoring to these two comments.

Please note that this may not be enough to qualify for this month, but it is a gesture to encourage continued contributions that provide in-depth analyses relevant both to the proposal itself and to the success of Arbitrum DAO. Ultimately, what we seek is for contributions to have a tangible impact on the outcome of discussions.

As we mentioned before in this thread:

Cp0x

Hey @cp0x

No, it is not necessary to duplicate information to earn points. However, posting the Communication Rationale (CR) in the proposal thread makes it easier for other delegates and the proposer to read it.

Communication Rationales are now evaluated in the same way as delegate comments/feedback before a proposal enters voting.

We can confirm that we reviewed your thread while evaluating your contributions but did not find a rationale eligible for scoring. But, if you see any CR that has been sufficiently in-depth, impactful, or valuable to warrant scoring, please let us know.

That being said, we would like to highlight a subsequent rationale (from March) that could serve as a benchmark for future references:

TMC Recommendation

While the first part of this rationale just outlines the voting options and methodology, the second half is particularly strong. Your comparison of the ARB strategy vs. the stablecoin strategy demonstrates a good level of analytical depth and introduces information that had not been mentioned by other delegates.

We recommend posting this analysis in the proposal thread, as it could add valuable insights to the discussion.

As we answered to you in the January results:

Although this is a technicality, since there was already a DAO representative, since the addition of an OpCo representative to the committee, we have decided to modify the scoring of the comment.

Both of your comments in the Jumper x Merkl // MAGA 2025 [Make-Arbitrum-Great-Again] have the same impact comment already, so both comments have the same score. We are not sure if we understand it correctly but we don’t see a penalty for writing the second comment. Keep in mind that it is common to see two or more comments from the same delegate within a single thread receiving the same score. The scoring is calculated based on the overall contribution (considering both comments) while counting both comments positively impacts the Presence in Discussions Multiplier.

web3citizen

Hey Web3Citizen. The thread was overlooked, thanks for pointing!
We’ve adjusted your Delegate Feedback considering two of your Communication Rationales.

2 Likes
14

Title: Dispute
User: ChamaDAO

We are not really clear on the Communication Rationale anymore.

For each proposal, we have provided feedback within the thread and also included links to these in our communication rationale thread:

  1. Stylus budget: Said it was far too expensive and made suggestions about how better to propose these large budgets in the future.
  2. Same with OpCo, Growth Circles and the ARB OS proposals.

So we are regularly providing feedback, with a consistent direction, but we somehow have gotten 0 points for the Feedback section.

Further we have joined a large number of calls including GRCs, open discussions, the Arbitrum Audit call, and the general DAO calls where we participate and provide feedback on proposals. However, we have just 1.25 bonus points (seems to be counted for attending two calls) and none of that work is applied to the delegate feedback section.

It just seems very hard to know what is getting counted here and not, and which proposals/threads to focus on during a month as often the proposal discussions spans across many weeks.

We understand there was some change to the scoring again, but going from full. marks last month to 0 this month doesn’t make sense, especially when we have increased our participation in the DAO this month.

We would also like to provide feedback on the 1.6 scoring and methodology. It has been very difficult as a small delegate and a team that has limited resources when trying to participate in the DAO. We spend a lot of time doing calls, writing feedback responses, and keeping up on the latest. Not to mention voting and the rest. It seems really bad incentives to then penalize the small delegates with less voting power and reward very large delegates who likely have more resources, etc. to participate because they are at large companies or are “professional delegate” organizations.

This month it seems less than half the incentives are going to delegates with less than 100k voting power. And the total number of incentivized delegates is down by half as well. This is even as more delegates have been added to the program over last few months. This seems that is opposite the true intention of the program, which should be to bring in fresh new delegates and reward contributions from all levels of delegates, not just large ones.

The rules for the program seem to change every 1-2 months, and they have consistently been hard to follow, and now seem very skewed against small delegates who are the ones that would need some program like this the most to make it worthwhile to participate in the DAO. The system before made some sense because if you voted on 100% of items in the month, you could get the minimum score needed for compensation. But as there are many more delegates in the program than slots, it was required to do some above and beyond participation to actually get compensation.

Now the rules are changed again and it has eliminated many people who were getting incentives over the past few months. This doesn’t seem right. We have been quite excited to participate in this program, but with changing rules and an unclear path for small delegates to get included, it becomes more and more difficult to spend the large amounts of time that seem to be necessary and don’t seem to equal the expected results when it comes to the end of the month.

15

Good to know! Our delegate thread is our main point of communication. Thanks for checking it.

I would like to suggest the inclusion of how you arrive to your conclusions on the clarity and depth in personal DIP reports. The impact and timing verticals of the rubric are more straightforward, but clarity and depth can be more subjective.

We know this is time consuming, but suggest this given that: the application of the rubric is subjective, those verticals are the most subjective among the DF criteria and that DF significatively impacts overall compensation for smaller delegates who need to offset the VP multiplier penalty. For example, why is our comment in the Audit Program deemed as a 2 (ambiguous or has errors according to the DIP bible). In our case for instance, DF is the main reason we don’t qualify for DIP this month and reading some comments in the delegate group we see this is the case for others too. Your comments around this would improve our participation or at least shed some light around how you’re thinking around it.

For the future, thinking around the subject of applying changes to the DIP, it can also be clearer for delegates if you specify how regularly you may be raising the bar for participation.

1 Like
16

Hey @chamadao

We would like to quote your rationale in this case:

There are several points to consider:

  • The analysis lacks depth. This is a grant program for builders. Stating that “there was no clear budget because more funds are being requested” is reductive. The proposer explicitly mentioned that the grant demand exceeded initial expectations and that the original budget was simply insufficient to cover the high-quality applications received.
  • We do not understand the claim that “there were no clear deliverables and goals.” Just by reading the proposal, its objectives become evident. In this case, the deliverables are even clearer than in the original proposal (back then, it was impossible to define them as the specific projects to be funded were unknown—this is where we highlight the lack of analysis).
  • It is also important to consider that this was comment number 55 in the post. By that point, many other delegates had already raised budget-related questions, and the proposer had addressed them. Given this, we do not see the impact of this comment on the decision-making process.

A similar pattern is seen in other cases. For example, in the OpCo proposal, an unreasonable comparison is made (AAVE vs. Arbitrum), considering that Arbitrum is a blockchain while AAVE is an application. Additionally, leaving aside that the rationale was posted in an old thread, the budget concerns had already been raised (and addressed by the proposer) multiple times over the past few months in that discussion.

We noticed that you disputed the calls last month, and we responded, so we will quote our previous answer:

We remind you that you have access to the DIP Bible, which will help you better understand the current framework.

Additionally, we find this statement somewhat curious. It is not the responsibility of the PM to tell you which threads to focus on during the month since ALL DISCUSSIONS IN THE FORUM are considered within the framework. You should focus on engaging in those where you feel you can provide a unique and valuable perspective capable of impacting the decision-making process. This should happen organically—otherwise, we would be encouraging participation in threads solely to obtain scoring in the program.

We do not understand this statement. Last month, you obtained 7.5 out of 30 points in DF. The reason you obtained the full 10 points in CR is that rationales were not being evaluated qualitatively; rather, it was simply required to “complete the task.”

We disagree with the claim that is difficult for small delegates to participate in the DAO and receive compensation. Looking at this month’s results, 12 out of 24 incentivized delegates have less than 1M VP (and 10 of them have less than 100,000 ARB)

In fact, two individuals who participate in the DAO alone—without employees or external help—are in the Top 3. This demonstrates that if enough time is dedicated to Arbitrum, it is possible to be among the top delegates of the month.

This was precisely one of the issues with the previous framework. Currently, chamadao has 61,690 ARB delegated. If the DAO had to pay the base compensation (3k) to every delegate with this amount of VP just for voting and justifying votes, about 2,000 delegates would be needed to reach the quorum on a non-constitutional proposal. This would cost approximately $6,000,000 monthly.

The key point is that small delegates do not significantly impact the DAO’s ability to reach quorum. This is why it makes sense to expect other types of contributions from them and why is not enough for them to qualify to receive incentives only by voting and justifying their votes

As a suggestion for the future, we have noticed that most of your interactions in discussions come after dozens of comments from other delegates. A better approach might be to spend additional time keeping up with the forum so that you can engage earlier in discussions and provide insights that have not yet been mentioned.

—–

A Final Note to All Delegates:

It is true that the framework has become more demanding, but the goal of this change is for Arbitrum to succeed. To achieve this, we all must raise our level of commitment.

Raising the bar means setting higher standards of participation. This is a natural progression in any organization. To prevent Arbitrum from stagnating against its competitors, delegates must push themselves to improve, even if this leads to challenging adjustments.

Additionally, the DIP should not be isolated from the current context. In recent weeks, a strong narrative against excessive and inefficient spending has gained traction, which we support. In this sense, the DIP must naturally evolve into a program that supports professional delegates who are willing to dedicate as much time as possible to ensuring Arbitrum’s success.

We acknowledge that the process is not simple. The framework has changed, and we have worked to reduce friction through documentation and ongoing communication with delegates. SEEDGov is open to suggestions for improving the framework, and we have already received several in the dedicated thread.

2 Likes
17

Appreciate all of the feedback. We have been quite active in the forum and in other avenues in the DAO like calls, which is why it doesn’t make much sense to us to get 0 scoring or bonus points for delegate feedback. A few additional points:

We have consistently been against high spending projects in the DAO. This has been a regular point of feedback from us. Our main feedback to proposers has been to reduce spending and come with proposals that have clear goals and where success can be measured. For proposals like Stylus grant spend, this was our feedback since the original vote. When the extension came up, it is still our feedback. There was no clear measures for sucess. Adding these could have made it much better in our opinion. It doesn’t make much sense that this clear feedback is thrown out for “lacking depth” and because many other delegates had similar feedback. If a proposal is getting lots of push back from delegates with similar feedback, this isn’t a reason to not count some feedback of delegates. It should be encouraged really, that delegates with similar views agree and add on to what others have said in the thread above.

Most of the problem is that this seems quite arbitrary and there is not much clear framework for how contributions are getting counted and measured and scored. For example, the OpCo proposal is once again, clear that we think it is too expensive and the budget reduced. But you say that it is an “unreasonable comparison.” Just because you don’t agree with our feedback, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t get counted.

For other contributions, joining calls and providing feedback in real time should also be counted in our opinion.

Then you say this:

It is not the responsibility of the PM to tell you which threads to focus on during the month since ALL DISCUSSIONS IN THE FORUM are considered within the framework.

But that’s also part of the problem, because it doesn’t seem like any of our contributions are getting counted. They are abitrarily thrown out or not counted, and the reasoning doesn’t seem clear at all or to be following some clear framework. So we are regularly asking for feedback here, and mostly it is coming in the form of “it’s just not good enough.” Ok then, so please provide some information on what is good enough? You are saying participation should be organic, but aren’t counting the organic particpation that we are doing, so we ask for more clarity, and then we don’t get any. It is very frustrating.

We disagree with the claim that is difficult for small delegates to participate in the DAO and receive compensation. Looking at this month’s results, 12 out of 24 incentivized delegates have less than 1M VP (and 10 of them have less than 100,000 ARB)

In fact, two individuals who participate in the DAO alone—without employees or external help—are in the Top 3. This demonstrates that if enough time is dedicated to Arbitrum, it is possible to be among the top delegates of the month.

Yeah this is clearly far less than last month. Small delegates who spending a lot of time providing feedback, joining calls, and adding value to discussions shouldn’t be penalized just because they don’t have large voting power. They also shouldn’t be penalized for adding to discussion after others have already added to discussions. The point of the program in our opinion is to incentivize a new diversity of viewpoints and delegates in the ecosystem, however the current method seems to be focused on rewarding larger delegates and otherwise through some arbitrary scoring mechanisms that are hard to understand and the PM is not explaining.

We just want some further clarity, so that we spend our time on the things that are most valuable to the DAO. And we still think that our scoring for this month does a poor job of reflecting the effort and contributions we made in February to the DAO and would ask the PM to reconsider based on the points above.

2 Likes
18

Hi @SEEDGov - do you need to schedule an oboarding call with me?

1 Like