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.
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.
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.)
