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

[WinVerse]

Title: Dispute

User name: WinVerse (DAOplomats)

Reason for dispute (please detail):
Thank you for putting this together, SEEDGov. We appreciate the time and effort you put into this. While our comment on ARDC V2 was overlooked, we are, however, unsure why our comment on the Entropy’s Y2-Y3 proposal was scored poorly, given it did make a considerable impact heading into Snapshot voting.

Here was our suggestion on a major aspect of their proposal – the 15M ARB structure.

@WinVerse

On this

@Entropy

We addressed this point above, but want to double down here to provide tangible reasons for why KPI-based vesting doesn’t make the most sense. If we tie our vest to the number of dashboards to be delivered, we are incentivized to launch quantity over quality.

@Entropy

We have put a vast amount of thought into this proposal’s structure, and are certainly open to other ideas

We suggest implementing a hybrid milestone model.

This will keep the time-vested structure but layer in high-level outcome gates (not granular counts). For instance:

• Gate 1 (Year 1 unlock): Launch one new sustainable revenue stream. For example, onboard a non-native asset into yield-generating DeFi.
• Gate 2 (Year 2 unlock): Show ≥ X% growth in a core financial metric (e.g. treasury income YOY or total TVL) by Q3 2026.

And if any gate fails, add a clawback clause that pauses future vesting until a corrective plan is brought forward and approved by the DAO.

And this was Entropy’s reply to the comment that ultimately led to them adjusting the 15M to include negotiating a milestone-based unlock with OAT in their proposal’s V2 update before the Snapshot vote.

@Entropy

We believe that Version 2 directly addresses these concerns and really appreciate all the feedback:

• 10M ARB is now held in reserve by the OAT to negotiate milestone-based rewards / other alignment mechanisms.
• Any unvested and unallocated ARB of the 10M will return to the DAO if the engagement ends early.

This structure provides the DAO with more flexibility while ensuring KPIs, stronger accountability, and clear levers to ensure Entropy’s work continues to deliver measurable impact.

It is difficult to come to terms with how this comment was scored poorly during the June evaluation for DAOplomats’ incentives. Saying it was discussed by Tane in the Delegate Feedback report is flawed. They gave a one-liner on going milestone-based with the 15M but focused their cost feedback on a breakdown of costs rather than the vesting, so it was neither discussed nor addressed by Entropy in their initial response to the comments. We consider our post had a measurable effect on the overall proposal, and seeing that it ultimately prompted a response from AJ on behalf of the OAT regarding negotiations with Entropy, it definitely should be looked into.

We believe our effort on Entropy’s Y2-Y3 proposal should be properly evaluated when considering DAOplomat’s June compensation.