# \[DIP v1.6\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (July 2025)
**URL:** https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839
**Category:** Delegate Incentives Program (DIP)
**Created:** [August 20, 2025, 1:55am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839 "2025-08-20T01:55:45Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2025, 1:55am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839/1 "2025-08-20T01:55:45Z")
# 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](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jf-qn2ro78fvgwSJxzXMUE6EY4CpULRy47D8UYR9jYk/edit?usp=sharing).
* * *
# 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](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x131574819442cb6da293795ee9faeec4754a5af664b535b654b3d9d3d53f47e1)**
2. **[Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd7529f75df21183d0eb9bce0cc828d56e9a100f449857c16177d98db6497cc16)**
3. **[Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x765b297702f21736e7b52c23d781dc76968519fef9c7b1ca1f924d167b2a6899)**
4. **[Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Year 2 and Year 3](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x320cd2a99a0544184c06e1bd305aab1fc226ab0b498e077bc857a07045194f43)**
5. **[[Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc08147e229fa642ee7da2e5180f225122b8c517024902f21cdcd02b376179b8d)**
6. **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x586de5bf366820c4369c041b0bbad2254d78fafe1dcc1528c1ed661bb4dfb671)**
7. **[Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd3d164905fee7dfd8516db6150a97f7f91cf6f9377f614fa6a82333c4fb20546)**
8. **[[Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd5a66f784523841511f7ffec4171b9c14404fdbf7c205086312084d19c95c193)**
9. **[Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x95a85f5d3d82215793ba9771ff06610d2ba9e2eaf58cdba904d7a9cb5b8bdc94)**
## 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](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/71020107401388505040510993373598301285550678565865201408741893567942851985019?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)**
2. **[[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/94423886836435773843507976898262621297544156552971145658873213763398017341229?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)**
It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in July were counted.
## Delegate Feedback
In the [Karma Dashboard](https://arbitrum.karmahq.xyz/delegate-compensation?month=july&year=2025) 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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-update-the-upgrade-executors/29463)**
2. **[Request for a Maintenance Upgrades Working Group](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-for-a-maintenance-upgrades-working-group/29634)**
3. **[Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Y2-Y3](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-exclusively-working-with-the-arbitrum-dao-y2-y3/29458)**
4. **[SOS Workshops: Notes and Discussion](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/sos-workshops-notes-and-discussion/29662)**
5. **[Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619)**
6. **[[Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503)**
7. **[Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/updating-the-code-of-conduct-daos-procedures/29594)**
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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/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.
# Delegate Feedback Reporting
You can check the Delegate Feedback Reporting in our [Notion page](https://www.notion.so/PUBLIC-DIP-Feedback-Report-1af3b4b4c932806ba85ec44cba13afa3?pvs=21).
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](https://arbitrum.karmahq.xyz/delegate-compensation?month=july&year=2025).
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](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wb-v52GLL72AxmZgas0eUEv1nfgYbRFkVZRt-X64dtM/edit?gid=1578748444#gid=1578748444)** 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, 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:**
- Tekr0x received **15 Bonus Points** for:
- LamprosDAO received **30 Bonus Points** for:
- TempeTechie received **20 Bonus Points** for:
- StableLab received **30 Bonus Points** for:
- MaxLomu received **10 Bonus Points** for:
### 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](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. 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:
```auto
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.
---
### Author:  [@Curia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Curia)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2025, 9:06am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839/2 "2025-08-20T09:06:51Z")
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](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7):
>
> 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…
---
### Author:  [@Olivia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Olivia)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2025, 11:28am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839/3 "2025-08-20T11:28:34Z")
Are there plans to adjust the tiers or compensation distribution to reduce the gap between Tier 1/Tier 2 and Tier 3?
---
### Author:  [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2025, 4:23pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839/4 "2025-08-29T16:23:12Z")
Hi @curia
Regarding the [feedback](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7?utm_source=chatgpt.com) 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:
> [@Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/4):
>
> 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.**
> [@Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7):
>
> 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:
> [@Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7):
>
> 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:
> [@Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7):
>
> 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](https://snapshot.box/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xfab795313df4ef1023c5f7f9027857637cc3841d62dc0b54796fbfa5f8096919)** 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
> [@Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7):
>
> 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
> [@Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/7):
>
> 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
---
### Author:  [@adriana\_steele1](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/adriana_steele1)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2025, 1:38pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-july-2025/29839/5 "2025-08-30T13:38:49Z")
What core limitations of the legacy coin standard did this rewrite aim to solve — scalability, composability, or dev experience?