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

[Argonaut]

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

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.

@Argonaut

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

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

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.