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

[SEEDGov]

@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:

@404DAO

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.

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:

• Ultra
• WonderX (as a side note, this post includes language that breaks the Code of Conduct)
• Jojo
• Strife
• Spike
• Bobbay
• pedrob
• CastleCapital
• Tamara
• TodayinDefi

(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.

@404DAO

Hey @Tekr0x.eth we wanted to answer some of your questions and guide this conversation constructively. TL;DR We value marketing but we’re uncertain whether the DAO has the necessary capabilities to execute a marketing strategy that’s distinct yet complementary to the existing efforts of the Foundation and Offchain Labs. The Foundation as well as other key Arbitrum stakeholders are currently driving marketing efforts. As you point out in the Foundation’s Transparency report, they have an exist…

• 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.

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.

@404DAO

3. [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.

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:

@404DAO

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.

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:

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3

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.

@web3citizenxyz

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.

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.