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

[SEEDGov]

July Participants

For the July iteration of the program, 83 participants enrolled, 56 of whom met the regular requirements to qualify.

You can see the full list here.

---

Parameters Breakdown

Snapshot Voting

During the month, there were a total of 9 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. These are the proposals that were considered:

1. Audit Committee Technical Expert Elections

2. Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence

3. Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension

4. Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Year 2 and Year 3

5. [Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors

6. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway

7. Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures

8. [Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge

9. Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance

Tally Voting

For this month, a total of 2 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. These are:

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router

2. [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction

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

Delegate Feedback

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

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 July, 7 proposals were considered:

1. [Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors

2. Request for a Maintenance Upgrades Working Group

3. Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Y2-Y3

4. SOS Workshops: Notes and Discussion

5. Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance

6. [Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge

7. Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures

To get the multiplier a delegate needed:

For 5% (1.05) = 2 to 3 comments (≥25%)

For 10% (1.10) = 4 to 5 comments (≥50%)

For 20% (1.20) = 6 or more comments (≥75%)

It is important to note that we considered JamesKBH feedback, so for the multiplier calculation, if the delegate made a valid comment on that topic/thread in the previous month, it was considered in the current month.

Delegate Feedback Reporting

You can check the Delegate Feedback Reporting in our Notion page.

We want to keep iterating these reports with community feedback. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to reach us.

---

July Results

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

Of all the participating delegates, 22 were eligible to receive compensation.

• Tier 1: 1 delegate. (4.55%)

• Tier 2: 6 delegates. (27,27%)

• Tier 3: 15 delegates. (68,18%)

Delegate	TIER	PUSD
L2Beat	1	7,000.00
TempeTechie	2	4,940.95
Tekr0x.eth	2	4,840.90
StableLab	2	4,403.91
Lampros DAO	2	4,380.52
MaxLomu	2	4,348.01
Jojo	2	4,268.34
Camelot	3	3,201.00
BlockworksResearch	3	3,195.00
404DAO	3	3,189.80
GMX	3	3,179.00
Griff	3	3,167.08
Tane	3	3,141.19
AranaDigital	3	3,135.00
GFXLabs	3	3,135.00
Reverie	3	3,135.00
TodayInDeFi	3	3,094.61
Gauntlet	3	3,044.39
Bob-Rossi	3	3,037.76
olimpio	3	3,035.50
jameskbh	3	3,014.27
Hawheik	3	3,001.96
		80,889.19

The total cost destined for the delegates this month would be $80,889.19.

It’s important to note that the final numbers might be different because of the ARB Cap, as stated in the proposal.

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

Payments

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

Bonus Points

This month, 2 bi-weekly and 1 GRC calls took place, with a maximum possible score of 3.75%. Note on Delegates Who Didn’t Qualify

• 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.

Extraordinary Contributions

This month, six delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their contributions to Arbitrum DAO:

• L2Beat team were given 30 Bonus Points: We would like to highlight three “extraordinary” contributions:

  • Request for a Maintenance Upgrades Working Group: L2Beat initiated a working group and organized the first meeting on July 30, 2025. We have assigned a total of 10 Bonus Points

  • SOS Discussions: L2Beat facilitated the first call to resume discussions around the SOS process. We have assigned a total of 20 Bonus Points

  • GRC Calls: In line with the previous month, we have assigned a total of 10 bonus points.

  It is worth noting that the maximum Bonus Points that can be awarded in a given month is 30. Therefore, while 10 out of the 20 points of recognition in the SOS Discussions are mostly symbolic, we still wanted to acknowledge and support the efforts made by L2Beat on this topic.

• Tekr0x received 15 Bonus Points for:

  • Continue engagement with The Farcaster - Mini Apps initiative through the coordination of a Farcaster Group with OCL members. Seeing that the initiative was taken by Offchain Labs, we decided to award the delegate with 5 Bonus Points. Note that we didn’t give more BP to the delegate because we already gave the major amount of scoring during June for this contribution.

  • For the organization of the Arbitrum Run during ETHcc, we have awarded another 10 points.

• LamprosDAO received 30 Bonus Points for:

  • Maintaining the Orbit Chains Dune Dashboard and adding support for the Orbit Chain Plume Network, we decided to assign 15 Bonus Points.

  • For their work on Dune Spellbook, we decided to assign 15 Bonus Points.

• TempeTechie received 20 Bonus Points for:

  • The delegate has carried out a significant number of contributions (1, 2) in the SOS Process. demonstrating a strong level of alignment and commitment to Arbitrum.

    His contributions reflect a deep understanding of the ‘pick a vertical’ narrative that we’ve been encouraging.

    During the analysis period, the delegate actively contributed to the SOS process, helping L2BEAT with facilitation work.

• StableLab received 30 Bonus Points for:

  • [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router: The fact that StableLab facilitated the onboarding process of a key protocol into Arbitrum’s Canonical Bridge for 141 days — from the initial post to the on-chain execution of the proposal — is undoubtedly a high-impact contribution to the DAO and the broader ecosystem. For these reasons, we have decided to award 30 Bonus Points.

  • During July, StableLab continued to push the need for the DAO to adopt an optimistic solution for certain types of maintenance or routine upgrades. We were able to confirm their efforts through feedback provided before the last Tally’s presentation in the first working group call on maintenance, as well as this post by cliffton.eth, which proposed an alternative for the DAO — a strong first step in the discussion initiated by L2Beat. We believe Stable Labs’ participation in this WG added value to the process and have decided to award 5 Bonus Points as recognition.

  It is worth noting that the maximum Bonus Points that can be awarded in a given month is 30. Therefore, while the second recognition is mostly symbolic, we still wanted to acknowledge and support the efforts made by StableLab on this topic.

• MaxLomu received 10 Bonus Points for:

  • His participation in the SOS Process. Max presented his SOS submission in the new stage of their SOS process.

On Delegates Who Did Not Qualify

We know that some delegates, mostly smaller ones, came close to meeting the criteria this month but did not qualify. While this can be discouraging, it’s important to understand that the program is built around two core pillars:

1) Participation in Voting to Help Reach Quorum Delegates with larger voting power are in a better position to influence outcomes and contribute to quorum.

2) Contributor Professionalization in Arbitrum Regardless of voting power, the program evaluates the substance of each delegate’s participation in discussions. It is essential that contributions either lead to proposal changes, influence the positions of other delegates, or add clear value to ongoing debates.

For smaller delegates, this second point is especially important. If their contributions are limited in visibility or impact, it becomes difficult to justify compensation, as their voting activity alone carries limited weight in meeting the DAO’s goals.

Lastly, we want to clarify that the feedback shared in our monthly reports is intended to be constructive. It is not a judgment of individual value, but part of a broader effort to support and develop capable delegates and contributors who can bring meaningful input to both daily governance and long-term decision-making.

Dispute Period

As stated in the proposal, delegates have a timeframe to express their disagreement with the results presented by the Incentive Program Administrator. Note that, if needed, we can accept disputes after this period under the PM’s discretion.

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):

Side note: We would like to remind everyone that we will not be processing disputes regarding other delegates’ scores, except in cases related to objective parameters (such as voting or call attendance).

Additionally, it’s important to note that disputes concerning subjective parameters (DF and Bonus Points) are unlikely to succeed unless they are exceptionally well-argued.

[Curia]

Title: Need clarification

User name: Curia

Hi @SEEDGov, we noticed that one of our feedback submissions didn’t qualify for scoring, and we also didn’t see any notes on our rationale in Notion. If possible, we’d love to understand how we can improve our rationale to make it more meaningful and earn a score in the future.

Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance

Thank you to Entropy for putting forward a thoughtful and well-structured proposal. We support the overall intent to consolidate idle funds into yield-generating strategies managed under the ATMC, which is aligned with the DAO’s long-term goals of capital efficiency and sustainability as outlined in the MVP and Strategic Objectives initiatives. That said, we would like to suggest a few refinements and explore certain areas where clarity or adjustments could further strengthen the proposal’s alig…

[Olivia]

Are there plans to adjust the tiers or compensation distribution to reduce the gap between Tier 1/Tier 2 and Tier 3?

[SEEDGov]

Hi @curia

Regarding the feedback provided in the thread, we’d like to point out the following:

1. Echoing Previously Stated Opinions

In your first point, you echo a suggestion that had already been raised by James, and in fact, your comment uses nearly identical wording:

@jameskbh

That said, I’d like to propose a middle-ground approach specifically for the Events Budget:

Instead of dissolving it, I suggest moving the funds under the ATMC balance to generate yield, while earmarking it for future event opportunities.

@Curia

First, we echo the suggestions from @cp0x and @jameskbh regarding the Events Budget. While we understand the challenges with its current structure, we suggest earmarking these funds within the ATMC rather than fully dissolving them

This also happened, in one of the last paragraphs, where you also echoed an opinion already expressed by another delegate:

@Curia

Finally, we support the point raised by @maxlomu regarding the need for a clearer breakdown of responsibilities between the ATMC, AAEs, and the Foundation. As operational roles expand, publishing a simple responsibility map would help DAO contributors and proposers understand where to engage and who to coordinate with across different verticals.

This isn’t necessarily a negative thing, as you’re expressing alignment with points raised by other delegates. However, it doesn’t bring anything new to the discussion.

2. Overlooking an Approved Framework

Your second point seems to overlook the recent approval of the ATMC and its associated framework:

@Curia

Second, as more capital is entrusted to the ATMC, we suggest increased transparency around how these funds will be allocated. While the proposal outlines the general stablecoin strategy, it would be beneficial to explore publishing a lightweight investment framework that includes expected yield ranges, preferred protocol characteristics, and risk parameters. This would help delegates better understand the trade-offs involved and improve overall oversight.

As outlined in the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts proposal, the DAO has already approved a process where:

If the Council identifies opportunities to generate yield on treasury assets, they will submit a high-level proposal for DAO approval. Once approved, Entropy will be responsible for presenting a more formal and detailed plan to the OAT for final approval.

Expecting a pre-published framework with detailed yield expectations, protocol preferences, and risk parameters contradicts the process that the DAO already ratified.

3. Asking for Clarifications That Were Already Given

@Curia

Third, while we recognize that the OAT plays a key role in oversight, we recommend clarifying how governance and reporting processes will apply to the newly allocated funds. This includes confirming that all fund deployments will be publicly disclosed in the ATMC’s forum thread and that quarterly reporting will be provided with performance data and strategy updates. These practices would support the DAO’s broader push for transparency and operational accountability.

In your third point, you request clarification on something that had already been addressed both in the forum and in the Snapshot proposal:

Entropy is clearly tasked with communicating any new allocations and deployments and is also responsible for providing quarterly reports. These responsibilities are explicitly mentioned both in the forum and in the Snapshot proposal.

4. Repeating Existing Concerns

@Curia

Regarding the unused ADPC Security Subsidies, we suggest exploring whether any unallocated funds could be coordinated with the Arbitrum Foundation’s upcoming security or audit initiatives. If these initiatives are well-defined and mission-aligned, they may represent a more targeted use of capital than passive yield alone.

Your fourth point repeats a concern already raised by MaxLomu, which Entropy later addressed by clarifying that the Arbitrum Foundation has enough funding to carry out the Arbitrum Audit Program initiative.

Conclusion

Despite the length of the feedback and considering the context outlined above, we don’t believe this comment added meaningful value or brought anything new to the discussion, nor did it influence the outcome of the proposal.

As stated in our public report:

‘Curia has built a tool that can help them make an in-depth exploration of data-driven analysis that can help the DAO have a great impact on decision-making. We find this comment as the perfect example of it and will definitely encourage following this path in order to keep achieving the necessary Total Participation to receive compensation.’ What we mean by this is that the right approach for Curia might be to identify a vertical where they truly have the context and expertise required to add value.

That being said, regarding feedback contributions specifically, our suggestion would be to provide feedback when you genuinely feel you can add something new to the conversation. To be frank, this particular comment felt somewhat forced.

One thing that might be helpful is to revisit which of your comments have previously received scoring in the DIP reports. That could give you a better sense of which verticals or discussions you’ve been able to contribute to most effectively.

We hope this feedback proves helpful moving forward.
Best regards,
SEEDGov

[adriana_steele1]

What core limitations of the legacy coin standard did this rewrite aim to solve — scalability, composability, or dev experience?