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

[DonOfDAOs]

Title: Dispute

Delegate Name: DonOfDAOS

Reason for dispute (please detail): I received 0 on delegate feedback yet I contributed notably, specifically targeted novel and useful contributions, and I checked in throughout the month to make sure I was on track.

1. I was the only person to notice or respond to this builder and provided in-depth feedback. I went further to meet them on call, to which they explicitly acknowledged I was the only member of the community to take the time to try and help them build here: [RFC] Signals Protocol
2. again, I was the only community member to point this builder in the right direction: [RFC] Protocol Participation Request: DAO Liquidity Injection via Smart Contracts into Paribus on Arbitrum - #3 by DonOfDAOs
3. Similarly, I was the first community member to address these builders after nearly a week with no response: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway - #2 by DonOfDAOs
4. I was one of the first to provide detailed feedback and questioning to help evolve this proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc - #10 by DonOfDAOs
5. I opened discussion on broader privacy standards for the DAO here: Proposal: enable the new TogetherCrew functionality: Free* summarizer and Q&A for delegates telegram chat - #33 by DonOfDAOs
6. Contributed to the Quorum discussions here: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction - #27 by DonOfDAOs

And this is among several other general communications. Certainly, 0 points must be a mistake as I also don’t see any delegate feedback in the Notion.

Further, why is my participation 83% (5/6) when I voted on every single proposal? In fact, it shows immediately next to this number that I voted on all 6, yet =5/6 is the manually entered forumla in my participation column.

The next section shows I didn’t vote on the Stylus proposal which had a snapshot of Feb 19th, 119 days ago and well beyond the 90 day window.

I see the following:

@SEEDGov

Note that proposals are always considered in the month in which they are finalized.

How does it make any sense to count the end of the voting window for participation when one cannot for the full length of that time if they were not delegated to before the snapshot? Effectively, they are being docked for a proposal which began weeks prior to the 90 window for which they may not have even had voting power to use even if they wanted to participate. The start should be the beginning of the period.

Besides which, I haven’t missed a single proposal and there were many more than 6 in the past 90 days.

Finally, I commented on all of the following to qualify for presence in discussions:

@SEEDGov

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:

1. [RFC] Proposal to Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratifying the Agentic Governance Pivot
2. [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
3. [Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc
4. Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation
5. Agentic Governance Initiative [AGI]
6. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
7. A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum
8. SOS Discussions

1. here: [RFC] Proposal to Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratifying the Agentic Governance Pivot - #7 by DonOfDAOs
2. here: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction - #27 by DonOfDAOs
3. here: [Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc - #10 by DonOfDAOs
4. N/A
5. Avoided Conflict of Interest
6. here: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #11 by DonOfDAOs
7. N/A
8. here: [SOS Submission] Gabriel – Strategic Objectives - #3 by DonOfDAOs