May Participants
For the May iteration of the program, 78 participants enrolled, 67 of whom met the regular requirements to qualify.
You can see the full list here.
Security Council Elections: Mandatory Voting
Please note that for the months of April and May, we have added a special requirement to be eligible for the program: delegates must have voted in the Security Council Elections that concluded on May 3rd, 2025.
You can visualize this in each Delegate’s Profile in the Karma Dashboard.
Delegates who didn’t vote on Security Council elections and won’t qualify for April and May incentives:
- DisruptionJoe
- Lovely4Wonders
- BristolBlockchain
- LobbyFi
- danielo - RnDAO
- McFly - Bacon Labs
- Agnes
- Bobbay
- Bruce1
Parameters Breakdown
Snapshot Voting
During the month, there were a total of 4 Snapshot Votes, which were considered for the assignment of scores by SV. These are the proposals that were considered:
- Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations
- [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
- DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
- [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
Tally Voting
For this month, a total of 2 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. These are:
- The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
- [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in May were counted.
Participation Rate (90D)
During the last 90 days (March-April-May), a total of 6 on-chain votes were considered for the assignment of scores by PR90. These are the proposals that were considered:
- The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
- [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
- [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program
- [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
- [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
- Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Note that proposals are always considered in the month in which they are finalized.
Delegate Feedback
In the Karma Dashboard, you can find the detailed breakdown of your Delegate Feedback.
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 May, 8 proposals were considered:
- [RFC] Proposal to Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratifying the Agentic Governance Pivot
- [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
- [Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc
- Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation
- Agentic Governance Initiative [AGI]
- DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
- A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum
- SOS Discussions
To get the multiplier a delegate needed:
For 5% (1.05) = At least 2 comments (≥25%)
For 10% (1.10) = At least 4 comments (≥50%)
For 20% (1.20) = At least 6 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
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.
May Results
You can see the dashboard with the results implemented by Karma here.
Of all the participating delegates, 24 were eligible to receive compensation.
- Tier 1: 1 delegate. (4.17%)
- Tier 2: 7 delegates. (29,16%)
- Tier 3: 16 delegates. (66,67%)
| Delegate | TIER | PUSD |
|---|---|---|
| L2Beat | 1 | 7,000.00 |
| MaxLomu | 2 | 4,740.54 |
| Reverie | 2 | 4,663.80 |
| GMX | 2 | 4,603.80 |
| Jojo | 2 | 4,309.09 |
| Tekr0x.eth | 2 | 4,288.71 |
| Camelot | 2 | 4,253.40 |
| olimpio | 2 | 4,219.80 |
| Griff | 3 | 3,219.34 |
| Karpatkey | 3 | 3,164.23 |
| Areta | 3 | 3,158.50 |
| Gauntlet | 3 | 3,149.00 |
| Tane | 3 | 3,138.41 |
| CastleCapital | 3 | 3,127.41 |
| AranaDigital | 3 | 3,095.00 |
| Uniswap-Arbitrum Delegate Program | 3 | 3,092.97 |
| 404DAO | 3 | 3,090.18 |
| StableLab | 3 | 3,089.04 |
| Curia | 3 | 3,046.85 |
| BlockworksResearch | 3 | 3,042.50 |
| TempeTechie | 3 | 3,038.62 |
| GFXLabs | 3 | 3,012.83 |
| Bob-Rossi | 3 | 3,011.59 |
| DAOplomats | 3 | 3,005.63 |
The total cost destined for the delegates this month would be $87,561.24.
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.
Eligible Delegates - Average Voting Power
This month, we decided to display the incentive distribution based on the Average Voting Power (AVP) of each delegate eligible for compensation.
Total Voting Power Incentivized
During May, the Delegate Incentive Program incentivized an average of 111,308,290 ARB (+8.98% MOM).
AVP-Based Distribution – May
From a total of 24 eligible delegates:
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 8 (33.33%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 16 (66.67%)
Within the group of Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000:
- Delegates with AVP < 100,000: 5 (62.50% of this group, 20.83% of total)
- Delegates with AVP > 100,000: 3 (37.50% of this group, 12.50% of total)
Distribution Per Tiers – May
- Tier 1: 1 eligible delegate in total
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 0 (0%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 1 (100%)
- Tier 2: 7 eligible delegates in total
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 1 (14.29%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 6 (85.71%)
- Tier 3: 16 eligible delegates in total
- Delegates with AVP < 1,000,000: 7 (43.75%)
- Delegates with AVP > 1,000,000: 9 (56.25%)
Conclusion
During May, there was a higher amount of incentivized Voting Power at the same time that the number of incentivized delegates decreased compared to April.
This is related to the fact that high-VP delegates have increased their participation in the incentive program, while the number of incentivized low-VP delegates has decreased compared to April.
Payments
We track all payment data for greater transparency in our Payment Distribution Thread.
Bonus Points
This month, 2 bi-weekly and 1 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.
Extraordinary Contributions
This month, four delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their contributions to Arbitrum DAO:
- L2Beat team were given 27.5 Bonus Points:
We would like to highlight three “extraordinary” contributions:- Builders’ Voices Needed: Shaping the Future of Arbitrum Together: Although the ultimate impact of this call to action is yet to be fully defined, we have already seen partial results, as several builders—many of whom typically do not engage with the DAO—have responded to the thread. This is highly valuable, and in our view, this initiative already deserves 10 Bonus Points.
- SOS Discussion Calls: During April (and the beginning of May), L2Beat effectively organized a series of calls to discuss the different SOS submissions that appeared on the forum. These sessions provided a space for each proposer to present their SOS matrices and allowed delegates and other stakeholders to ask questions. We also view this as an initiative that deserves 12.5 Bonus Points.
- GRC Calls: While May wasn’t the first month in which L2Beat began organizing these calls, we want to formally start acknowledging their efforts. They’ve successfully restructured the format of these calls, enabling the community to receive updates on all funded initiatives within a one-hour session. For this reason, we are awarding them 5 Bonus Points in recognition.
- Tekr0x received 10 Bonus Points: During the analysis month, the delegate made an outstanding contribution to the Arbitrum Gaming Ventures initiative through the post “Gaming on Arbitrum – A Guide for DAO Members” which we consider highly valuable and detailed. This contribution was also acknowledged by a member of the AGV
- Cp0x received 5 Bonus Points for his participation in the SOS Discussions ([SOS Submission] {Merged: TBD} – Strategic Objectives)
- TempeTechie received 10 Bonus Points for his participation in the SOS Discussions ([SOS Submission] {Merged: TBD} – Strategic Objectives )
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 meeting 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.
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
Delegate Name
Reason for dispute (please detail):
Side note: We would like to remind everyone that we will not be processing disputes regarding other delegates’ scores, except in cases related to objective parameters (such as voting or call attendance).
Additionally, it’s important to note that disputes concerning subjective parameters (DF and Bonus Points) are unlikely to succeed unless they are exceptionally well-argued.
