June Participants
For the April iteration of the program, 79 participants enrolled, 66 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 7 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. These are the proposals that were considered:
- Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot
- Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation
- Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget
- Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability
- Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations
- Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts
- [Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova
Tally Voting
For this month, a total of 1 Tally Vote were considered for TV scoring. These are:
It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in June 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 June, 6 proposals were considered:
- Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Y2-Y3
- Proposal: Adjust AGV Council Compensation to Reflect Role-Based Governance Commitments
- Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension
- Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts
- Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability
- Proposal: Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence
To get the multiplier a delegate needed:
For 5% (1.05) = At least 2 comments (≥25%)
For 10% (1.10) = At least 3 comments (≥50%)
For 20% (1.20) = At least 5 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.
June 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. (4.54%)
- Tier 2: 5 delegates. (22,73%)
- Tier 3: 16 delegates. (72,73%)
| Delegate | TIER | PUSD |
|---|---|---|
| Tekr0x.eth | 1 | 6,718.92 |
| L2Beat | 2 | 5,032.20 |
| Jojo | 2 | 5,000.34 |
| MaxLomu | 2 | 4,341.72 |
| Lampros DAO | 2 | 4,286.75 |
| Tane | 2 | 4,219.29 |
| TempeTechie | 3 | 3,205.39 |
| BlockworksResearch | 3 | 3,203.57 |
| GFXLabs | 3 | 3,149.00 |
| Tamara | 3 | 3,143.19 |
| olimpio | 3 | 3,127.75 |
| Gauntlet | 3 | 3,127.00 |
| Camelot | 3 | 3,126.82 |
| Griff | 3 | 3,125.84 |
| GMX | 3 | 3,117.50 |
| Reverie | 3 | 3,106.00 |
| Areta | 3 | 3,075.00 |
| Bob-Rossi | 3 | 3,070.78 |
| CastleCapital | 3 | 3,064.03 |
| StableLab | 3 | 3,049.43 |
| AranaDigital | 3 | 3,035.00 |
| 404DAO | 3 | 3,008.51 |
| $79,334.03 |
The total cost destined for the delegates this month would be $79,334.03.
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, four delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their contributions to Arbitrum DAO:
-
L2Beat team were given 15 Bonus Points:
We would like to highlight two “extraordinary” contributions:- [RFC] Proposal to Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratifying the Agentic Governance Pivot: For taking ownership and carrying on the conversation about adjusting the VP of EventHorizon and confirming via vote the pivot made by the protocol, we decided to award 5 Bonus Points.
- GRC Calls: After re-evaluating the GRC workload, we realized that 5 bonus points might not fully represent the amount of hours needed to perform the GRC as professionally as L2BEAT does, and therefore decided to re-scale and allocate a total of 10 bonus points.
-
Tekr0x received 20 Bonus Points: During the analysis month, the delegate continued contributing to the Arbitrum Gaming Ventures initiative through the coordination of Welcome to the “Next Level” - A New Playtest Series for the DAO with the AGV. For this reason, we have awarded 10 Bonus Points.
Also, for the organization of the Delegates Dinner during ETHcc, we have awarded another 10 points.
-
LamprosDAO received 20 Bonus Points for their notable contribution with the Orbit Chains Dune Dashboard Initiative this month. We encourage the delegate to keep expanding the dashboard.
-
TempeTechie received 15 Bonus Points: During the analysis period, the delegate actively contributed to the ETHMilan initiative by coordinating a Delegates’ Dinner and volunteering at the booth.
-
StableLab received 5 Bonus Points for their post-mortem in the [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router proposal.
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.
Delegate Suspension
During June, a particular situation arose involving the @cp0x delegation, who posted a tweet related to the Arbitrum Gaming Ventures (AGV) initiative.
The tweet included an image that could be interpreted as AGV stealing funds from the ArbitrumDAO. This type of accusation—especially when not supported by proper due diligence—undermines the collaborative and constructive spirit of the Arbitrum DAO, while also damaging the reputation not only of the individuals involved in the proposal but of Arbitrum as a whole.
As Program Manager, SEEDGov has the responsibility to mediate in such cases, particularly when the party involved is a delegate potentially eligible for incentives under the program.
The first step we took was to gather feedback from different stakeholders, Arbitrum Aligned Entities, and delegates who have a greater or lesser correlation with the AGV and all of them expressed the need to take disciplinary action against the delegation.
We then organized a meeting with the individuals behind the delegation to hear their side of the story and allow them to reflect on the situation. In that discussion, the delegation acknowledged that the image could be interpreted in an unintended and potentially harmful way. In order to avoid multiple interpretations and prevent escalation into debates over imagery, while recognizing that a significant portion of the community may have perceived reputational harm, the tweet was deleted.
From SEEDGov’s perspective, while the action itself represents a serious lack of respect towards key stakeholders and contributors within the community, the delegation’s acknowledgment of the mistake and subsequent correction serve as mitigating factors in determining the final disciplinary action. We recognize that the @cp0x members demonstrated a willingness to reflect on their actions.
With all this in mind, SEEDGov has decided to suspend the cp0x delegation for two months (June and July), during which they will not be eligible for any incentives under the program. As of August, they are welcome to continue participating in the program, with the understanding that should a similar situation occur again, the Program Manager reserves the right to take any action deemed appropriate.
Disclaimer: As Program Manager, SEEDGov is committed to fostering a healthy, respectful, and constructive environment. Under no circumstances is our intention to censor anyone. All delegates are encouraged to express critical views on any discussion or proposal, provided it is done respectfully and constructively, and without unwarranted accusations—especially those implying criminal conduct.
Dispute Period
As stated in the proposal, delegates have a timeframe to express their disagreement with the results presented by the Incentive Program Administrator.
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.
