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

[SEEDGov]

Argonaut

Hey! @Argonaut

@Argonaut

• [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.

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:

@cupojoseph

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

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

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:

@SEEDGov

As you can observe in the notes included in the individual reports 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.

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 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] 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 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.

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