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

DAO Programs & Initiatives Delegate Incentives Program (DIP)
1

March Participants

For the March iteration of the program, 75 participants enrolled, 67 of whom met the requirements to qualify.

You can see the full list here.

Parameters Breakdown

Snapshot Voting

During the month, there were a total of 3 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. These are the proposals that were considered:

  1. GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)
  2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
  3. [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols

Tally Voting

For this month, a total of 3 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. These are:

  1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
  2. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
  3. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program

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

Delegate Feedback

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

687×402 20.6 KB

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 March, 9 proposals were considered:

  1. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
  2. TMC’s Proposed Allocations
  3. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
  4. [Non-Constitutional] Service Provider Utilisation Framework
  5. [Constitutional] Increase resilience to outside attackers by updating DAO parameters to not count Abstain votes in Quorum.
  6. GMC’s Preferred Choices for 7,500 ETH RFP
  7. [Non-Constitutional] GCP Clawback
  8. [Non-constitutional][RFC] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
  9. How can Arbitrum improve its presence on Web3 Social?

To get the multiplier a delegate needed:

For 5% (1.05) = At least 3 comments (>25%)

For 10% (1.10) = At least 5 comments (>50%)

For 20% (1.20) = At least 7 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

We are excited to introduce a new version of our Delegate Feedback Reporting. From now, 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.

March Results

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

Of all the participating delegates, 28 were eligible to receive compensation.

  • Tier 1: 4 delegates. (14.28%)
  • Tier 2: 8 delegates. (28,57%)
  • Tier 3: 16 delegates. (57,15%)
Delegate TIER PUSD
Camelot 1 6,130.60
BlockworksResearch 1 6,022.10
paulofonseca 1 5,975.55
L2Beat 1 5,969.95
Reverie 2 4,951.20
Areta 2 4,912.20
Jojo 2 4,842.38
TempeTechie 2 4,836.00
Tane 2 4,737.48
GFXLabs 2 4,439.21
mrjackalop.eth (DanielO) 2 4,426.22
CastleCapital 2 4,408.29
Gauntlet 3 3,235.50
jameskbh 3 3,176.53
olimpio 3 3,175.00
Tekr0x.eth 3 3,141.04
MaxLomu 3 3,139.75
404DAO 3 3,137.13
pedrob 3 3,131.37
0xDonPepe 3 3,097.64
AranaDigital 3 3,095.00
cp0x 3 3,068.38
Griff 3 3,067.85
Lampros DAO 3 3,048.27
DAOplomats 3 3,018.31
Vertex Protocol 3 3,016.86
Karpatkey 3 3,014.96
Bob-Rossi 3 3,007.14

The total cost destined for the delegates this month would be $111,221.89.

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 two delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their contributions to Arbitrum DAO.

Both @PauloFonseca and @TempeTechie were awarded with 15 Bonus Points due to their valuable contributions toward the execution of the ETH Bucharest event.

This month, 1 bi-weekly and 2 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.

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 advancing 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.

New Members of the Program

We have 4 new participants who are willing to be part of the program next month. Note that starting this month, we will have 1:1 mandatory calls with each new applicant.

Remember, you can apply anytime.

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)

2

Title: Dispute

User name: Tekr0x.eth

Reason for dispute:

I would like to dispute my March 2025 DIP result. There are three areas where I would like you to reassess my awarded points.

  1. Delegate Feedback - 0 points

In March, I opened an important topic on the forum about How can Arbitrum improve its presence on Web3 Social? The post sparked a good debate (15 replies). The topic was also clearly noticed by Offchain Labs, because since the post they reignited some posts on Lens (Hey).

In Notion, your feedback was that: Our current criteria state that such discussions must ultimately result in an approved DAO proposal in order to be considered an extraordinary contribution and eligible for Bonus Points.

I understand this, but out of 15 replies, I also wrote 4 replies/feedbacks in that post. While Areta, GensDAO, and LamprosDAO got points for participating in a debate, none of my replies received any points.

Also, in general, I think if anyone opens a debate that sparks a good conversation and overall improves Arbtitrum DAO, the post author should also be rewarded. It is not clear to me why topic posts should not be considered in delegate feedback? They could include an analysis or information valuable to the DAO. Excluding topic posts from delegate feedback consideration does not make sense, in my opinion.

  1. Bonus points for participating and collaborating in executing the Arbitrum DAO at the ETH Bucharest 2025 event in March - 0 points

Two delegates (Paulo and Tempe Techie) received an extra 15 points for the collaboration in executing on ETH Bucharest 2025. Since the event itself took place between 2–5 April 2025 I imagine points were awarded for activities before the event.

I did actively participate in the discussions and debates on the forum (like this one): and I also attended weekly calls organized by Paulo every Monday leading up to the event.

Besides that, I took an extra initiative myself in March to prepare and organize a side event Arbitrum DAO Morning Run · Luma. The event was included in the official side event. You can see it here: https://lu.ma/ETHBucharest-Events.

  1. Presence Multiplier - 0 points

I attended all 3 calls in March, but I got 0 points awarded. You confirmed my attendance in the Public Google Sheet but the points were not added in my sum of points in the spreadsheet and in Karma.

Thank you! I appreciate your hard work and I hope my dispute will be seen as a positive contribution for all the future assessments.

2 Likes
3

Title: Dispute

User name: EzR3aL

Reason for dispute:

I would like to dispute my March DIP result.

  1. Attendance at calls
    The open table says I have been only at one call although it had been two. See screenshots for proof.
    Call March 11, 2025
    image
    image1177×1280 110 KB

Call March 25, 2025

GRC Call 25_03_25
GRC Call 25_03_251920×704 97.4 KB

Sorry Paulo, you are always in the screenshot :slight_smile:

  1. Feedback for this proposal- How can Arbitrum improve its presence on Web3 Social?

I think I have made a valid point about the current status of web3 social here How can Arbitrum improve its presence on Web3 Social? - #2 by EzR3aL.
Current web3 socials don’t have any important impact nor do they have a large userbase, most user are simply bots trying to farm potential airdrops like “Lens” from Avara (formerly known as Aave). Then there is also Farcaster, which has a bit stronger community in terms of developement, but also here userbase is stagnating and overall acitivity cooled down by a lot. We have seen it with Friendstech, it was a hype but eventually died.
So right now there is no benefit of using there platforms and spend money for them. If you don’t believe me, just check when someone makes a comment and names “Metamask” or anything else token related, you are getting 100s of comments like “nice, to hear that bro, good initiative, etc.”.

  1. Feedback towards the TMC Proposed Allocations V2 -- Stablecoin Strategy - #2 by EzR3aL
    I have noted that the Aave DAO recently approved the Umbrella upgrade onchain via AIP.
    This is relevant, as the this could have changed the direction the TMC proposal would have gone. As it offers more yield to the DAO which nobody yet mentioned.
    Although there weren’t any comments on that the thread creator achknowledged the comment and it could be that the allocations may be changed in the future.
3 Likes
4

At the current price of ARB of $0.29 USD per ARB, everybody will be hitting the cap in every tier.

But some will be more capped than others. As usual, yours truly is the one who will get wrecked the most, because of this tiered cap system that I believe is unfair, as I pointed out here. And this also happened last month… FML =/

It honestly feels pretty unfair, that in the month that I feel like I’ve worked my ass off for Arbitrum, is the month that I still can’t breach into Tier 1, and that my compensation gets capped the most out of everybody else in here. I’m gonna get capped to the tune of $1,486.00 USD. So instead earning the $4,966.40 USD equivalent, I’m gonna get $3,480.00 USD equivalent. That’s a 30% cut in my compensation for this month of March. The month where I feel I worked and contributed the most, here in Arbitrum DAO.

Down bad.

How much each delegate is affected by the Tier ARB Cap
How much each delegate is affected by the Tier ARB Cap1568×1220 296 KB

At $0.29 USD per ARB, the total expense for this month’s DIP will be $80,475.00 instead, because of the cap.

2 Likes
5

I’m not sure if this is the thread to make this recommendation, but I would suggest the program adopt a more objective criterion model (at least in part). I have tremendous respect for the efforts put forth by SEEDgov and in no ways mean to trivialize the difficulty of structuring a program such as this. I would however, suggest that at minimum for the lowest tier of admittance, the program adopt a structure similar several other DAOs by which onchain metrics and snapshot data are used to structure a calculable criterion. This can then be represented in a dune dashboard so all delegates know exactly where they stand in near-real time. Again, for higher tiers, perhaps there is more room for subjective assessment. But, I do see it as important to many delegates that they have a real-time understanding that their work will at minimum be rewards for by a base-tier of ARB. For maintaining quality / spam prevention, I would love to see an optimistic approach by which delegates may flag spam for the PM to review, rather than force the program managers to approve / disapprove every opinion. This seems taxing and no-win for them. In a world where there is a fixed ARB emissions rate and variable number of eligible delegates, there is incentive for delegates to keep each other accountable on quality. If spam contributions are disqualified there is more of the pie to be shared by the genuine contributors. Put this work on the delegates, not the PM.

2 Likes
6

Dispute

TodayinDeFi

We attended both biweekly governance discussion calls. Our delegate communicators are Brook and Danger - Brook was the main one on the calls this month.

DIP feedback was useful, will keep the recommendations in mind going forward. Would note that the length of some replies were due to detail needed for certain recommendations but will certainly try to be more concise going forward.

7

Title: Dispute
User name: Ignas

Reason for dispute:

  1. My comment on this proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Service Provider Utilisation Framework - #4 by Ignas

This comment provided clear value by:

  • Supporting the overall direction of the proposal and framing it as a way to improve governance efficiency, something many delegates struggle with today.
  • Raising a concern about the auto-pass mechanism in the Optimistic Governance Module and suggesting a safeguard (requiring explicit approvals).
  • Asking for more clarity on how service providers will be selected, while suggest the need to leave room for new players.

The author even shared this comment on X, showing that it resonated with them - https://x.com/ImmutableLawyer/status/1902976976354226523. I believe it added to the discussion and should not have been scored 0.

  1. My comment on this proposal: GMC's Preferred Choices for 7,500 ETH RFP - #54 by Ignas

While the forum comment was brief, it was backed by a well-researched blog post analyzing Fluid. I shared a link to that analysis to help delegates understand the project better. The intent was to contribute to more informed decision-making.

Would appreciate a review of both cases. Thanks!

8

Title: Dispute
Username: Curia

Reason for dispute:

Hi, we noticed that our feedback regarding the DIP program structure was posted, but it wasn’t counted in the delegate feedback summary. we are unsure if this type of feedback isn’t considered because we also contributed here: [DIP v1.5]Delegate Incentive Program Questions and Feedback - #25 by Curia.

9

Title: Dispute
Username: jameskbh

Reason for dispute:

Low values on timing, impact, relevance & depth of analysis.

My comment on this proposal was provided the day before the snapshot started. In the old rubric, I believe the score would have been 4. And it got a 5 in the current one (from 0-10). Shouldn’t it be higher?

Similarly, the comment was recognised by the author as relevant, and they changed the proposal because of it. The current score, on a scale of 0-10, does not seem to reflect that. (5 on relevance, four on depth and three on impact).

1 Like
10
  • Title: Dispute
  • User name: Argonaut
  • Reason for dispute: Our team has noticed that our attendance at two meetings, one Bi-Weekly and one Monthly, has not been taken into account. We kindly request a review of this. Thank you.
11

Agree here, also its quite hard to understand how the combination of timing, comment quantity, quality etc is really measured. Im not trying to understand how to play it but rather what is needed to bring value at the right time, in the right form so I can somehow make sure my “salary” is secured.
Its my second month now that im not reaching the lowest tier, despite trying to improve and reading the comments from Seed. As this compensation is relevant for me as my only income source its hard to justify the time spend on the forum vs. not knowing what im getting in the end.

Worst case consequence for me would be way less activity, knowing I won’t get anything but rather using that time more efficiently for other DAOs, projects, etc.
Maybe a super low tier would be great to be added, like 750$ just for voting onchain and offchain, voting power threshold and some minor forum activity to make sure its possible to bot it somehow.
Otherwise im seeing the risk of people eventually leaving the DAO for another and creating that downstream of governance activity. And as voting power is quite sticky, this would be a bad thing for a DAO.

PS: I have tremendous respect for Seed doing this program, but it feels like adjustments could be done.

4 Likes
12

Hi everyone! Going to answer all disputes one by one as always:

Tekr0x

This topic was discussed internally while we reviewed your contributions for March. It’s not that we dismissed it as lacking value, but rather that we wanted to wait a bit longer to better assess its impact and avoid the risk of “double rewarding” it later on.

We do recognize the value of the discussion you started, but not every topic post in the forum necessarily drives value to Arbitrum, so we need to be careful with precedent. In this specific case, you had mentioned ongoing conversations with the Foundation and OCL, and also that you’d be conducting some research on the topic. Since those are precisely the kind of activities we’d want to highlight and reward, our initial idea was to potentially award Bonus Points if the effort materializes in something more tangible later on.

That said, we understand that giving a zero might be discouraging for contributors. For this reason, we’ve decided to assign you some points for this contribution now, while keeping in mind that if the discussion later results in a proposal or a broader impact, we will consider the points already given in any future Bonus Point allocation.

The Bonus Points we granted to Paulo and Tempe were specifically related to the tasks they took on in helping to organize the main event.

In your case, while we acknowledge your initiative with the Morning Run side event, the event itself took place in April and we don’t yet have enough supporting details to assess your March contributions clearly. We think it would be more appropriate to evaluate this in the April scoring cycle.

You’re absolutely right — this was an oversight on our part. Your attendance wasn’t properly reflected in the dashboard. We’ve now corrected that. Thanks a lot for flagging it!

In summary, your score has been updated, and you are now eligible for March.

EzR3aL

Hi @ezr3al

Regarding the March 11th call, as you can see in our attendance records, you were present for only 11 out of 54 minutes — that’s under 21% of the total call. Currently, anyone who attends less than 50% of a call is not being considered, as it would be unfair to other delegates who stayed for the full duration.

image
image743×114 20.4 KB

As for the March 25th call, we’re not sure what the dispute is — you already were granted Bonus Points for your attendance in that session.

The issue is that while you do share an opinion (which we’re not judging for validity), we don’t see how the comment contributes to a discussion that wasn’t even about a proposal or a monetary request. The OP was trying to spark a conversation and gather delegate feedback on Arbitrum’s Web3 social media presence. It’s fine to believe these platforms aren’t useful, but again, how do you think this added value to the discussion?

Also, your final mention of bot activity is applicable to X (formerly Twitter) as well — yet that doesn’t invalidate it as an important platform for Arbitrum’s outreach.

While your comment provides a valid input, as PMs we can’t base our evaluation on what might happen in the future.

TodayInDefi

Thanks for pointing that out — we weren’t aware that Brook was part of TodayInDefi. To avoid future confusion, please update your application to clarify who your communicators are.

That said, we were only able to find Brook in the March 25th call, not the March 11th one — as shown in our attendance records.

Ignas

This comment indeed includes constructive suggestions and was highlighted by the proposer, so we agree that it may not have been properly assessed at first. We’ve decided to include it now. That said, we want to clarify that behaviors like “supporting the overall direction of a proposal,” while useful for consensus-building, don’t count as sufficient criteria for rewarding delegate feedback on their own.

We understand your point, although we don’t believe the comment itself warrants scoring. We recommend checking your individual report and using higher-scoring delegate comments as benchmarks or inspiration.

Any action related to the DIP (votes, feedback, etc.) is excluded from this framework to avoid conflicts of interest. This has been a standing internal policy since the program began.

Jameskbh

Each individual report includes the following clarification:

“Timing and Clarity & Communication scores are adjusted relative to Relevance, Depth of Analysis, and Impact on Decision-Making.”

The rationale for this is outlined here:

You’re right that the impact had been underestimated — we’ve made a slight adjustment accordingly. (Note: a score of 6 had been incorrectly given in Clarity & Communication, which is capped based on other parameters.)

Argonaut

image
image936×160 28.3 KB

Regarding the call held on 11/03, the same situation as with ezr3al repeats: according to our records, you were only present for 10 minutes.

As for the GRC on 12/03, Argonaut does not appear in our attendance records.

2 Likes
13

We don’t have a dispute, but we have the same comment that we brought up last time.

With the changes from the latest v1.6 program, small delegates are too harshly penalized and their contributions not being fairly valued by the weighting.

It is clear that many delegates are spending their time furthering the goals of the DAO and contributing to the ecosystem in ways that are not recorded or recognized here. Even when Delegates make good faith efforts to make contributions within the approved framework, they are often not being counted because of odd technicalities.

When small delegates do the same participation and offer many great ideas to improve things, we should be valuing these contributions potentially even more than those from large organizations who are often paid through the DAO and have their delegations from insiders.

Part of the appeal of the Arbitrum delegate incentives program for new delegates was that participating and being able to dedicate a full time position to participating in the DAO with actual upside for the new Delegates if they brought fresh perspective to the conversation. But now even highly valued individual contributors are spending time having to argue technicalities to try and cover the cost of their time and decide if it is even worth the effort to participate.

It’s sad to see that well known delegates whose time is valuable and have invested effort and money into becoming a delegate are then being barely excluded mostly because they have small amount of voting weight.

This change turned what was becoming a competitive landscape of small delegates spending time and effort in the DAO to the same game of insiders with large delegations paying themselves.

2 Likes
14

Title: Dispute
Username: web3citizenxyz
Reason for dispute:

Two ignored posts that we believe should be scored.

1- Last month we provided this comment, and later crossposted here with a better explanation on our views on the DIP.

This comment was meant to provide greater feedback on the proposal. We believe it added to the discussion, supporting an issue that other delegates named but with a clearer example on impacts of chosen metrics. And recognised as helpful:

Are these overlooked because they are not detailed enough? Because they are not helpful to the discussion? Would appreciate your feedback.

2- This comment on the Time Boost proposal was not scored. The comment was brief but it clearly detailed the resources we used to inform our decision and our arguments to vote in favor. We believe this comment also should be scored.

Would appreciate a review on both. Thank you Seed!

15

Title: Dispute
User name: paulofonseca

Reason for dispute:
I would like the following comments to be included either in my Delegate Feedback score, or as Bonus Points.

1 Like
16

I completely agree with Paulo

It is strange to hear arguments that we have adopted such a system and therefore must adhere to such restrictions. However, this did not prevent several changes in the rules for calculating points and significantly reducing payments to delegates.

Considering that up to $100,000 is spent on payments, and the planned budget is $350,000 per month, I believe that @SEEDGov should consider the necessary changes to the restrictions taking into account the changes in scoring and the current cost of the ARB

3 Likes
17

Title: Dispute

Username: 404DAO

Reason for dispute: We believe that a number of our comments were not properly counted towards delegate feedback.

Evidence:

  1. GMC's Preferred Choices for 7,500 ETH RFP - #32 by 404DAO
  • We flagged governance concerns about the initiative’s design—specifically the lack of DAO representation and an election process, which we believe was a contributing factor to native Arbitrum protocols being excluded from the choices.
  • In an additional comment, we asked a critical question about who would be responsible in the event of a security incident; for the record, Entropy responded privately in Telegram.
  • We noted that most Arbitrum marketing is driven by the Foundation and Offchain Labs, likely making DAO funding for this proposal challenging.
  • We nevertheless expressed support for a community-first marketing strategy and shared insights to the questions posed by the proposal author, on user needs, ecosystem fit, and governance processes.
  1. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
  • Rika authored this proposal and replied to delegate comments but this post does not appear in our forum activity on Karma and we received no credit—we suspect this may be due to Rika’s forum account not being linked to 404’s in Karma, even though we requested this in the previous DIP version.

Lastly, since this new DIP is only two months in, we’d like to offer constructive feedback: the highly subjective nature of delegate evaluations calls for greater transparency from program managers; the Notion page currently lacks the level of detail necessary to help delegates dig into their scores and improve their contributions in future months.

1 Like
18

Hi @SEEDGov , thank you for the clarification. we may have overlooked the this policy, could you kindly point us to it? We would really appreciate it.

19

@paulofonseca

After analyzing all your disputes, we decided to assign scoring to the Non emergency actions to facilitate key rotation of Security Council - December 2024 comment. We overlooked this comment, and apologies for that.

For the GCP Update Thread, we analyzed the wallet you mentioned, but no tokens were delegated to the null address. Considering that this comment has had zero impact (yet), we don’t see reasons to assign scoring.

Regarding the rest of the disputed comments, we maintain our position: from our perspective, they did not provide substantial value to the discussion or generate a concrete impact on the proposals evaluated. Therefore, they were not considered for scoring. In some specific cases, such as the one in Event Horizon Updates, it’s unclear to us what exactly is being disputed. The comment consists of a series of questions directed at the Event Horizon team regarding a decision they made. While we understand you may disagree with that decision, we don’t see an outcome from the situation that would warrant scoring.

We understand there may be differences in judgment, and we value the effort to participate. However, we believe that for a dispute to be considered in this framework, it must include a rationale explaining the grounds for the challenge.

@404DAO

First of all, thank you for posting your dispute with a detailed rationale. We will try to address point by point:

While we understand that the inclusion of Arbitrum Native protocols in the GMC recommendation was something mainly achieved by delegates, we decided in the first place not to include this comment because this point was addressed previously by:

(footnote: some of the members mentioned are not part of the DIP; and some of the comments made by DIP participants didn’t receive Delegate Feedback scoring)

So, considering the 404DAO comment was around the GMC not allocating to Arbitrum-Native protocols, and the fact that this was already largely discussed before the disputed comment was posted, we decided not to consider it.

After reviewing this comment, we decided to assign a score to it. A second review made us notice that we might have overlooked some valuable insights regarding marketing efforts.

This is a topic we’ve already discussed in a private comm channel but we’ll kindly explain again:

The Delegate Incentive Program will never assign a score to delegates in a proposal who would get economic compensation for it. This has always been this way, regardless of whether the proposal passes or not, as normally a proposal in the forum spends more than one month being discussed, it would also be nonsensical for us as Program Managers to retroactively give a score for a proposal in case it didn’t pass.

In this case, the proposal you are disputing contained the following budget allocated to a member of 404DAO:

1280×447 83 KB

We appreciate the feedback and understand the need for greater granularity in our reports. As you rightly mentioned, it’s only been two months since we began producing this type of feedback, and our intention is to continue deepening the reports without compromising too much on the timeliness of the results.

That said, it’s important to note that we have direct communication channels with all delegates who have requested them, and on several occasions, we’ve also provided feedback or addressed questions outside the scope of the monthly reports.

For that reason, we encourage any delegate who hasn’t found the insights they need in the reports to reach out to us directly.

@Curia

You can check that in the Bible’s FAQ. Also, we’ve responded to similar disputes in the same way in the past—you can verify this in the following examples:

You can also confirm that Snapshot and Tally votes for DIP 1.5 were not included under the DIP 1.0 framework.

@web3citizenxyz

The same applies as we’ve mentioned to Curia: any action related to the DIP (votes, feedback, etc.) is excluded from this framework to avoid conflicts of interest. This has been a standing internal policy since the program began.

We appreciate the attempt to outline the resources used to inform the decision—this is indeed part of the due diligence expected from any delegate prior to casting a vote. That said, what seems to be missing from this comment is a unique insight or new information being brought to the table. It’s clear that adding value in this topic is not easy, given that it is a highly technical discussion that has been under review for months. For this reason, we remain unconvinced about including it.

As an additional note: when compared with the other two rationales considered, it’s clear that those carry more depth and insight than the disputed comment. Therefore, if we were to include it, it would receive the same scoring as the others to avoid skewing the average. The result of this would be to increase the Presence In Discussions Multiplier to 1.05x, which, according to our calculations, would still be insufficient to reach the 65-point threshold.

With this message, we consider the dispute period finalized.

1 Like
20

but that’s the point of the comment, to get them to delegate to the null address. so is it your stance that when they delegate it, then my comment had impact and therefore should be counted? and is that really gonna happen?

I don’t disagree with their decision. My comment was done as a followup to a discussion in the telegram delegates chat where I pointed out that that Event Horizon strategic decision should be made public beforehand. So I asked them in the forum as well, to make sure they would state it publicly for everybody else to see. That’s why I think that comment of mine is valuable.