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

[jameskbh]

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?

@SEEDGov

Changes

• DF Scoring Methodology: The scoring range in the rubric for each comment included in the Delegates’ Feedback parameter will be adjusted from 0 to 10 (previously 0 to 4).

@SEEDGov

Timing: Considers when the delegate provides feedback, rewarding those who provide feedback earlier, as long as they meet the above criteria. Note that feedback will be considered as provided before on-chain/off-chain voting if it was published before the day voting starts at 00:00 UTC.

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).

@kamilgorski

Hey @jameskbh - thanks for your feedback, it’s a very valuable insight and perspective The 1st iteration of the program will be limited to 15-20 projects only (compared to 74 in LTIPP) in order to set up a high quality benchmark of what can be achieved in terms of user acquisition. Therefore teams that have good track record / experience and can produce better results may naturally be preferred in this iteration. Most of such teams already have marketing / growth specialists on-board (we asked about it).

We do however want for high-potential smaller projects to join as well (which was consulted with Arbitrum Foundation) and you’re perfectly right that such teams may need help with their applications.

We’ll therefore modify the proposal tomorrow to accommodate for initial consultations with the Marketing Specialist to help such projects prepare their applications I hope such solution sounds good and thanks for pinpointing this!