# \[DIP v1.6\] Delegate Incentive Program Results (June 2025) **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Incentives Program (DIP)\ **Created:** [July 23, 2025, 8:58pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-june-2025/29657 "2025-07-23T20:58:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 11
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2025, 7:50pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-june-2025/29657/11 "2025-07-30T19:50:08Z")
## Curia > [@Curia](#): > > We wanted to clarify that we do feel our feedback added value to the discussion. It went beyond just asking for KPIs or budget details. We raised points about how to evaluate outcomes from past initiatives like STEP and the staking working group, and how to define success for upcoming programs like DRIP. These questions are core to ensuring the DAO allocates resources effectively. While Entropy participated in the Staking Working Group, the initiative itself stemmed from a separate proposal: **[ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/52793687237294107439411688810483120161857085958258363826553939061522164665920?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4)**. Our understanding is that Entropy mentioned the working group because they were involved, but they were not leading it — that role was carried out by the Tally team. As such, we don’t believe Entropy should be expected to evaluate the outcome of a working group they did not coordinate. Regarding DRIP, it is a separate proposal that will have its own parameters for success. Entropy has already stated that they are responsible for the program’s execution, which makes it straightforward for the DAO to evaluate its performance and determine whether the allocated funds were effectively used. Overall, we find that these points — while broader in scope — have limited direct relevance to the proposal at hand. The DAO will be able to assess the outcomes of any initiative in which Entropy serves as Program Manager or lead facilitator based on the specific metrics established in each case. > [@Curia](#): > > We also touched on how Entropy’s work aligns with broader DAO strategies like the SOS framework, and flagged topics around the delegate–service provider relationship and exclusivity. This is another area of concern from our perspective. The comment asks Entropy to explain how their work aligns with DAO-wide objectives — yet such objectives have not even been defined at this stage. It is difficult to expect alignment when the direction itself remains undefined. > [@Curia](#): > > One point we believe is particularly important is the question of continuity. We asked what would happen if the proposal didn’t pass. That’s a key consideration for delegates, and the fact that the proposal later addressed it shows it was worth raising. Questions like these help the community make better-informed decisions. We agree that this was a valid concern — in fact, we acknowledged it in our previous response. However, we do not believe this single point is sufficient to warrant a higher score for the comment overall. ## DAOplomats Hi @Winverse > [@WinVerse](#): > > 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. Tané’s comment was simply one example. Jameskbh also raised the need to define clear milestones for the 15M ARB bonus proposed by Entropy: > [@Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Y2-Y3](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-exclusively-working-with-the-arbitrum-dao-y2-y3/29458/7): > > While on this first pass, I don’t have much to say about the proposed work scope and the base pay related to that, but I believe the extra 15m ARB allocation **deserves clear milestones to make sense** , and/or should have a similar structure of the first proposal (a separeted Snapshot vote). IMO, it is expected that, as a “contractor” working for a single client, the team’s commitment to deliver the items defined above and the incentive for this sole client to be successful, are part of the base pay (that already has a bonus for the exclusivity/market we are inserted). In the case of DAOplomats, we acknowledged that your comment expanded on that idea with a concrete, novel suggestion, and that the rest of the post included some viable suggestions. That said, we respectfully disagree that the score provided was lower than what the comment merited. The final solution proposed by Entropy differs significantly from DAOplomats’ suggestion, and given the number of delegates who raised concerns about the bonus and requested milestone conditions, we believe it is an overstatement to characterize your comment as having had a “considerable impact” that would justify a higher score. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-delegate-incentive-program-results-june-2025/29657)._