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

[SEEDGov]

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 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 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? 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

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.

@Ignas

[Non-Constitutional] Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program : 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 : 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

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 : 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 by other delegates.

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

@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.

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:

@SEEDGov

“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:

@SEEDGov

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, 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 thread was created on February 6:
  

  

JamesKBH

@jameskbh

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.

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