# \[DIP v1.6\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (February 2025) **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Incentives Program (DIP)\ **Created:** [March 18, 2025, 11:17pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742 "2025-03-18T23:17:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2025, 11:17pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/1 "2025-03-18T23:17:04Z")
# 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](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jf-qn2ro78fvgwSJxzXMUE6EY4CpULRy47D8UYR9jYk/edit?usp=sharing). * * * # 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](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x45513bb63946582432afa7213bcb2677e877dabbd5722210efd5eaf45797031c) 2. [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto](https://snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x7cc26491a070c74c1a4ec5a9892571d31eb690015936a35b52c0d3a97bd5497f) 3. [Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xab1a7ff1a294882315f3beaa77fa0d4b2ec68633792046b941714108209ce737) 4. [Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xbd77b4faf99e06c7b4117e5dafaf5bb8f873bcffbb5c9d414a7ff745b6849f3a) 5. [Arbitrum Audit Program](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xebbcad364ae7f02797b9cd7f30c668907d479d4bb5ba7f5d775849822297a01d) ## 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](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/13323456481927947871314500108227684550647495448005726995657704713229313956489) 2. [OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/41351298371775353090222506531903916823291804644712693824312064183457809617851) 3. [Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/47215139570733026393508270943324710379923699871435188004224569883226292800465) _ **It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in February were counted.** _ ## Delegate Feedback In the [Karma Dashboard](https://arbitrum.karmahq.xyz/delegate-compensation?month=february&year=2025) you can find the detailed breakdown of your Delegate Feedback. ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/1/1f3297621ff8fc2eba5abc6eb3555d92d98d8db7.png) ## 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/18), 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 > [@\[DIP v1.51a\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (January 2025)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/1): > > We’re excited to introduce a new section in our **monthly Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) report**. > > As part of our commitment to transparency and accountability, we are now providing **individual reports for each DIP participant**. These reports offer insights into your voting activity throughout the month, along with comments on **your contributions to the forum discussions**. > > We aim to continuously **improve this report** , delivering more **granular and personalized feedback** to better support delegates in their engagement and decision-making. 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](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lt3_GCpkc1I33UNjj0KpM5vfe0UaIuPimX49E23-aZw/edit?usp=sharing). * * * # February Results You can see the dashboard with the results implemented by Karma [here](https://arbitrum.karmahq.xyz/delegate-compensation?month=february&year=2025). 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](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14CIUzkoOntSQztsXm6HUVGewW74BlfTCVfKOf4wpYOA/edit?usp=sharing) to see the detailed breakdown of delegates’ results. # Payments We track all payment data for greater transparency in our [Payment Distribution Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51-delegate-incentive-program-payment-distribution-thread/27877). # Bonus Points This month two delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their remarkable contributions to Arbitrum DAO. [@Vertex\_Protocol](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/vertex_protocol/summary) has been awarded 5 Bonus Points due to their [exemplary contribution](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/mss-for-arbitrum-communication-thread-arbitrum-multisig-support-service/26508/13) 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca) has been awarded 20 Bonus Points due to two contributions: - [ETH Bucharest Contribution](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-in-eth-bucharest-2025/28477): 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/new-telegram-arbitrum-dao-delegates-private-group-chat/28353): 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/19th-grc-governance-reporting-call-on-wednesday-september-25th-at-2pm-utc/26901)” and the “[Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/c/governance/biweekly-proposals-discussions-call/46).” - 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/delegate-incentive-program-1-5-application-thread-and-code-of-conduct-adherence/27969/59) anytime. # [CALL TO ACTION!] Dispute Period As stated in the [proposal](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/98889951328992702889653461987621825257851718470562453684547824130828387112157), 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) ---
**Author:** ![newze](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/newze/32/12835_2.png) [@newze](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/newze)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 1:41am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/2 "2025-03-19T01:41:48Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 2:45am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/3 "2025-03-19T02:45:23Z")
> [@newze](#): > > 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? Hey @newze ! We’ll address point by point: “_How scores are evaluated_” → There is a [rubric](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742) used to assess contributions each month. The details of this methodology can be found in the [Bible V1.6](https://governance-seedlatam.notion.site/Delegate-Incentive-Program-DIP-v1-6-Manual-for-Delegates-1a03b4b4c93280a488ffd405f101a7ef). Additionally, each delegate receives an [individual monthly report](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lt3_GCpkc1I33UNjj0KpM5vfe0UaIuPimX49E23-aZw/edit?usp=sharing), 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: > [@\[DIP v1.60\] Updates Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-60-updates-thread/28018/2): > > ## Introducing v1.51a > > January 20th, 2025 > > ### Changes > > - **Proposal Feedback** > > - Proposals Threads with less than 5 comments during the evaluated month will not be considered for the ‘Delegates Feedback’ multiplier. > > **Rationale:** > > We noticed that there were proposals included month by month, with little activity, which was detrimental to the majority of delegates who did not participate IN THAT MONTH (because the denominator of proposals contemplated increased, and this decreased the participation score of the delegates). > > We decided to implement a change in which we will consider the comments of the delegates in the discussions with little interaction (less than 5 comments) but we will not consider these discussions in the total discussions of the month. In this way, we record the comments of the delegates, and at the same time, we do not harm the others whose scores would be drastically lowered. > > **The changes mentioned above become effective retroactively as of January 1, 2025.** And this one: > [@SEEDGov](#): > > It is important to note that we considered @JamesKBH [feedback](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/18), 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. “_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](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14CIUzkoOntSQztsXm6HUVGewW74BlfTCVfKOf4wpYOA/edit?gid=369814006#gid=369814006) published in this thread. You can also find the records here: **Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call** : [[Link](https://meet-attendance-tracker.web.app/attendancereport.html?vid=N4dnW8bj4K4NIeb2x8Ji)] **Governance Report Call (GRC) - 7/2**: [[Link](https://meet-attendance-tracker.web.app/attendancereport.html?vid=Hz8jp6q57jLMHFPdueeM)] **Governance Report Call (GRC) - 5/2**: [[Link](https://meet-attendance-tracker.web.app/attendancereport.html?vid=wkhOuTPVLWMea1Ye0kyC)] 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:** > [@newze](#): > > I am concerned about these people’s competence 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: > [@SEEDGov](#): > > # [CALL TO ACTION!] Dispute Period > > As stated in the [proposal](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/98889951328992702889653461987621825257851718470562453684547824130828387112157), 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) ---
**Author:** ![Larva](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/larva/32/1896_2.png) [@Larva](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Larva)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 4:12am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/4 "2025-03-19T04:12:41Z")
Dispute Larva My feedback on [Non-Constitutional: Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program] inspired many delegates, why does it invalid? > [@Non-Constitutional: Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-amendment-to-the-delegate-incentives-program/28331/28): > > I don’t understand why you place more trust in delegates with over 500k voting power. You should recognize that these individuals don’t actually need to participate in the incentives program. Many of them are project teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem who already received substantial ARB airdrops in 2023, along with significant funding through STIP & LTIP. The ones who truly need a few thousand dollars in monthly incentives are the smaller delegates—essentially, small investors. Some have dedi… ---
**Author:** ![Tane](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tane/32/3187_2.png) [@Tane](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tane)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 5:39am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/5 "2025-03-19T05:39:08Z")
Dispute Tané We would like to get clarifications on two of our comments, which are not scored as “delegate feedback”. > [@Arbitrum Audit Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/28368/60): > > We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot. After reviewing the proposal, Foundation clarifications, delegate feedback, and recent calls, we support running the program under the new organization led by the Foundation and a technical expert, with OpCo participation in the future. This setup better accommodates the audit program’s unique requirements, including a strong business development perspective and the need for projects to remain as stealth as possible. While it’s unfortunate that miscommunic… 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/72) is at least evaluated with some scores. > [@\[CONSTITUTIONAL\] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/21): > > We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot. We have reviewed EIPs to be included (and not included) in the Callisto upgrade and we find the rationale behind each decision clear and articulated. We are particularly excited about the EIP-7702 change to be included on Arbitrum One and Nova for users on those chains as we believe the change will drastically improve the user experience over time. We have a couple of questions: Even reading [the detailed document](https://docs.arbitrum.io/launch-orbit-chain/configure-your-chain/common-configurations/arbos-upgrade#step-3-schedule-the-arbos-version-upgrade), it wasn’t clear what the “technical deta… 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! ---
**Author:** ![Ignas](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ignas/32/11301_2.png) [@Ignas](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Ignas)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 10:53am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/6 "2025-03-19T10:53:40Z")
**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](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1in95i2OI0kg0dJ-tF_nm_Rh1IsnJ4E_V/view?usp=drive_link) 2. I’d also like clarification on 3 of my comments that were not scored as “delegate feedback”: - **[[Non-Constitutional] Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-amendment-to-the-delegate-incentives-program/28331/18)** **:** Received agree from other delegates. I believe it added value to the discussion. - **[Arbitrum Audit Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/27)** **:** I voted against, while the proposal passed with “For.” I raised concerns that $100M for audits is excessive (even though others mentioned it before me) and provided information of alternative firms with lower costs. → I believe this added another perspective for delegates to consider. - **[[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/26)** **:** I suggested announcing airdrops in advance to incentivize builders rather than rewarding past activity. → I see this as a constructive suggestion for future decisions. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ezr3al/32/14760_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/EzR3aL)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 11:01am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/7 "2025-03-19T11:01:21Z")
> [@SEEDGov](#): > > 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 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 ---
**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 11:50am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/8 "2025-03-19T11:50:10Z")
Title: Dispute User name: jameskbh Reason for dispute: [my comment](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jumper-x-merkl-maga-2025-make-arbitrum-great-again/28463/6) on Jumper x Merkl proposal led to [several changes in the proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jumper-x-merkl-maga-2025-make-arbitrum-great-again/28463/8) (rules for receiving the incentives, using MSS, etc), but it was rewarded only with “4” in the impact column. ---
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 4:31pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/9 "2025-03-19T16:31:22Z")
### Larva > [@Larva](#): > > Dispute > > Larva > > My feedback on [Non-Constitutional: > > Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program] inspired many delegates, why does it invalid? 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 > [@Tane](#): > > 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/72) is at least evaluated with some scores. 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/51) 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. > [@Tane](#): > > 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). 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/72)? If so, it was posted just eight hours ago. ### Ignas > [@Ignas](#): > > joined the GRC on February 7 but was not counted for the bonus points. Please check again, I have a screenshot [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1in95i2OI0kg0dJ-tF_nm_Rh1IsnJ4E_V/view?usp=drive_link) 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/february-11-2025-open-discussion-of-proposals-governance-call/28405) for Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call on February 11 (and was not included in the [agendas](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/22nd-grc-calls-week-of-monday-february-3rd/28335) 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/january-28-2025-open-discussion-of-proposals-governance-call/28283)” can be partially read, further suggesting that the screenshot may not correspond to the date you mentioned. > [@Ignas](#): > > **[[Non-Constitutional] Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-amendment-to-the-delegate-incentives-program/28331/18)** **:** Received agree from other delegates. I believe it added value to the discussion. 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. > [@Ignas](#): > > **[Arbitrum Audit Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/27)** **:** I voted against, while the proposal passed with “For.” I raised concerns that $100M for audits is excessive (even though others mentioned it before me) and provided information of alternative firms with lower costs. → I believe this added another perspective for delegates to consider. 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: > [@Arbitrum Audit Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/6): > > We decided against a maximum cap in favour of offering the option to invest in projects as opposed to simply grants. If there is a subsidy that is larger than normal, it could be issued as an investment, and ultimately help align the project with the Arbitrum ecosystem. In nearly all cases, projects will also be expected to have skin in the game and pay for a portion of the audit. The $100K per project functions as an estimate, meaning there is no commitment to spending that amount on each audit. > [@Ignas](#): > > **[[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/26)** **:** I suggested announcing airdrops in advance to incentivize builders rather than rewarding past activity. → I see this as a constructive suggestion for future decisions. While the suggestion is constructive, note that it was [previously mentioned](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/20) by other delegates. Also the thread in question is more about **forming a working group rather than launching an airdrop** : > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/18): > > This is a proposal to specifically create and fund a working group to come up with the plan and different options for all the various details. 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 > [@EzR3aL](#): > > 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 We refer you to a previous response that may be useful: > [@\[DIP v1.60\] Updates Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-60-updates-thread/28018/2): > > “_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: > > > [@\[DIP v1.60\] Updates Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-60-updates-thread/28018/2): > > > > ## Introducing v1.51a > > > > January 20th, 2025 > > > > ### Changes > > > > - **Proposal Feedback** > > > > - Proposals Threads with less than 5 comments during the evaluated month will not be considered for the ‘Delegates Feedback’ multiplier. > > > > **Rationale:** > > > > We noticed that there were proposals included month by month, with little activity, which was detrimental to the majority of delegates who did not participate IN THAT MONTH (because the denominator of proposals contemplated increased, and this decreased the participation score of the delegates). > > > > We decided to implement a change in which we will consider the comments of the delegates in the discussions with little interaction (less than 5 comments) but we will not consider these discussions in the total discussions of the month. In this way, we record the comments of the delegates, and at the same time, we do not harm the others whose scores would be drastically lowered. > > > > **The changes mentioned above become effective retroactively as of January 1, 2025.** > > And this one: > > > [@SEEDGov](#): > > > > It is important to note that we considered @JamesKBH [feedback](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/18), 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. 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368) thread was created on February 6: ### JamesKBH > [@jameskbh](#): > > Title: Dispute > > User name: jameskbh > > Reason for dispute: [my comment](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jumper-x-merkl-maga-2025-make-arbitrum-great-again/28463/6) on Jumper x Merkl proposal led to [several changes in the proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jumper-x-merkl-maga-2025-make-arbitrum-great-again/28463/8) (rules for receiving the incentives, using MSS, etc), but it was rewarded only with “4” in the impact column. You’re absolutely right. We have updated the impact score to 7 in alignment with the other parameters. ---
**Author:** ![Argonaut](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/argonaut/32/11832_2.png) [@Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Argonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 11:07pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/10 "2025-03-19T23:07:16Z")
Title: Dispute @Argonaut Reason for dispute: Hello, we have some differences regarding how our comments have been evaluated. - [[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop - #8 by Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/8) 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. > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/8): > > We could use it to incentivize liquidity to migrate to Arbitrum instead of competing networks or to encourage more protocols to deploy on Arbitrum (for example, Morpho and Euler). Additionally, we have followed the discussion on the proposal and participated in it again. > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/20): > > In that case, why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work rather than rewarding past contributions? Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones? Why not use ARB to attract liquidity? Why is half a billion ARB better invested on an airdrop instead of these programs? 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. - [Non-Constitutional: Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program - #23 by Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-amendment-to-the-delegate-incentives-program/28331/23) 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. ---
**Author:** ![cp0x](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/cp0x/32/5455_2.png) [@cp0x](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/cp0x)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2025, 11:14pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/11 "2025-03-19T23:14:31Z")
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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/28368/) 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. ---
**Author:** ![web3citizenxyz](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/web3citizenxyz/32/10925_2.png) [@web3citizenxyz](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/web3citizenxyz)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 4:09pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/12 "2025-03-20T16:09:57Z")
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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/25) and [rationale for audit program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/30) 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/15) do convey our arguments and stance. We’d like clarity around this. Thank you for your time. ---
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 10:19pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/13 "2025-03-20T22:19:24Z")
### Argonaut Hey! @Argonaut > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/8): > > - [[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop - #8 by Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/8) > > 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. > > > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/8): > > > > We could use it to incentivize liquidity to migrate to Arbitrum instead of competing networks or to encourage more protocols to deploy on Arbitrum (for example, Morpho and Euler). > > Additionally, we have followed the discussion on the proposal and participated in it again. > > > [@](#): > > > > In that case, why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work rather than rewarding past contributions? Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones? Why not use ARB to attract liquidity? Why is half a billion ARB better invested on an airdrop instead of these programs? > > 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 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: > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/18): > > This is a proposal to specifically create and fund a working group to come up with the plan and different options for all the various details. - 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. > [@Argonaut](#): > > - [Non-Constitutional: Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program - #23 by Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-amendment-to-the-delegate-incentives-program/28331/23) > > 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. As we mentioned before in this thread: > [@SEEDGov](#): > > 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. ### Cp0x Hey @cp0x > [@cp0x](#): > > 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? 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/cp0x-delegate-communication-thread/22217/169) 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. > [@cp0x](#): > > - 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. As we answered to you in the January results: > [@\[DIP v1.51a\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (January 2025)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/26): > > As you can observe in the notes included in the [individual reports](https://docs.google.com/document/d/18im160XQpDGvPLWpkvltHwc7UzwWPVNmQ8ttLS0S6R4/edit?usp=sharing) of each delegate, the scores for the parameters Timing and Clarity & Communication are **adjusted** relative to Relevance, Depth of Analysis, and Impact on Decision-Making. This means that it is unlikely for the Timing score to be higher than the Relevance score, for example. > > ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/9/93a1f51b90ef3d1c3fa7778ce35e3e0cfca5f3e2.png) > > This is justified by the fact that a delegate may be the first to comment, but, if he/she provides low or medium-quality feedback, it makes no sense to assign the maximum Timing score to a comment that contributed little to the discussion. Timing is valuable when the comment is insightful or has a significant impact. The same applies to Clarity & Communication. > > In summary, a comment may have the same or a lower score in these two parameters compared to the other criteria in the rubric. This will be better reflected in the February results when the Scoring system transitions to a 0 to 10 scale. > [@cp0x](#): > > In the commentary [Arbitrum Audit Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/28368/) 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? 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. > [@cp0x](#): > > 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. Both of your comments in the [Jumper x Merkl // MAGA 2025 [Make-Arbitrum-Great-Again]](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jumper-x-merkl-maga-2025-make-arbitrum-great-again/28463) 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 > [@web3citizenxyz](#): > > - 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/25) and [rationale for audit program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/30) 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. Hey Web3Citizen. The thread was overlooked, thanks for pointing! We’ve adjusted your Delegate Feedback considering two of your Communication Rationales. ---
**Author:** ![chamadao](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/chamadao/32/12746_2.png) [@chamadao](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chamadao)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 8:36am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/14 "2025-03-21T08:36:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![web3citizenxyz](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/web3citizenxyz/32/10925_2.png) [@web3citizenxyz](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/web3citizenxyz)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 3:36pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/15 "2025-03-21T15:36:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2025, 11:10pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/16 "2025-03-22T23:10:19Z")
Hey @chamadao > [@chamadao](#): > > Stylus budget: Said it was far too expensive and made suggestions about how better to propose these large budgets in the future. We would like to quote your rationale in this case: > [@Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-to-increase-the-stylus-sprint-committee-s-budget/28312/56): > > There were no clear deliverables and goals, which is why we voted against then. Now, there is a further proposal to extend the budget. This suggests there was no clear budget as well for the original program. This is not how the DAO should be spending funds, and is another example of what we have been regularly saying: “too much spending with too little impact.” > > We are voting AGAINST this proposal. 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-opco-scale-structure-synergy/22737/31), the budget concerns had already been raised (and addressed by the proposer) multiple times over the past few months in that discussion. > [@chamadao](#): > > 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. We noticed that you disputed the calls last month, and we responded, so we will quote our previous answer: > [@\[DIP v1.51a\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (January 2025)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/17): > > Hi @chamadao > > Currently only the following calls award Bonus Points: > > > [@\[DIP v1.51a\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (January 2025)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-51a-delegate-incentive-program-results-january-2025/28494/1): > > > > Additionally, Bonus Points were awarded to several delegates for their attendance at the “[Arbitrum Governance Report Calls](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/19th-grc-governance-reporting-call-on-wednesday-september-25th-at-2pm-utc/26901)” and the “[Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/c/governance/biweekly-proposals-discussions-call/46).” > > > > - 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 was established at the time of voting on the proposal on [Tally](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/7979895167029508946638584765496434407327098393519089113101189960001594458109?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) and then the allocated percentage per call was modified in this [announcement](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-60-updates-thread/28018). > > We are aware that there is more activity beyond these two calls and we are currently looking for alternatives to make the framework as comprehensive as possible. > [@chamadao](#): > > 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 remind you that you have access to the [DIP Bible](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-bible-delegate-incentive-program-dip-manual-for-delegates/28642), 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. > [@chamadao](#): > > 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 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.” > [@chamadao](#): > > 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. 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. > [@chamadao](#): > > 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. 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-bible-delegate-incentive-program-dip-manual-for-delegates/28642) and ongoing communication with delegates. SEEDGov is open to suggestions for improving the framework, and we have already received several in the [dedicated thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-5-delegate-incentive-program-questions-and-feedback/27798). ---
**Author:** ![chamadao](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/chamadao/32/12746_2.png) [@chamadao](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chamadao)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 8:32am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/17 "2025-03-25T08:32:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![KlausBrave](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/klausbrave/32/5226_2.png) [@KlausBrave](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/KlausBrave)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 11:58pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/18 "2025-03-26T23:58:50Z")
> [@SEEDGov](#): > > Klaus Brave Hi @SEEDGov - do you need to schedule an oboarding call with me? ---
**Author:** ![Zeptimus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/zeptimus/32/5471_2.png) [@Zeptimus](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Zeptimus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 1:54pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-february-2025/28742/19 "2025-04-14T13:54:07Z")
> [@SEEDGov](#): > > Zeptimus (Call Pending) @SEEDGov I’ve been navigating Arbitrum since February (focusing on proposals) spending substantial amount of hours to be aware of everything going on and still catching up, Arbitrum governance its a beast itself. I also completed all the delegates tasks such as read all proposals, think about them and share my honest opinion and cast my votes. Is there going to be a retro compensation for the tasks completed or is that being considered an onboarding expense that users must complete? In any case I believe it would be beneficial for new delegates to have an onboarding process. I love the idea of the 1on1 call, looking forward to hear next steps to make it happen!.