Title: Dispute part 2
Delegate Name: cp0x
Reason for dispute:
Let’s look at other comments that I believe you may have overlooked. I understand that reviewing all 44 comments is a demanding task — that’s fair
1. Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
I highlighted the core issue — the loss of control — and pointed out that this proposal does not actually solve the problem, but merely delays it. I believe my comment should be evaluated as follows:
- Relevance (5/10): The proposal doesn’t address the problem, only postpones it.
- Depth of Analysis (5/10): I outlined several alternative solutions that could — and arguably should — have been considered, referencing how other DAOs handled similar issues.
- Timing (5/10): Any well-reasoned comment submitted before the vote should receive at least a 5 here.
- Clarity & Communication (8/10): My feedback is clearly structured, proposals are listed, conclusions are drawn — it would be hard to ask for better organization.
- Impact (10/10): I voted against, and along with Paulo was among the first to voice that position on the forum. My 95k VP contributed to a 4M vote “Against” swing — that’s a significant impact.
Additionally, forum scoring doesn’t account for off-forum influence. I regularly post about governance topics on Twitter, and it’s entirely possible that some of the impact came from there:
https://x.com/cp0xdotcom/status/1929546466281783561
2. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
I supported the initiative, but suggested improving it through vesting, greater transparency in allocation and governance, clearer budgeting, and mitigation of reputational risks
- Relevance (5/10): I expressed both support and highlighted areas for improvement, including the funding amount — a topic that was later discussed by other delegates as well.
- Depth of Analysis (8/10): I considered the lessons from the previous program and raised concerns to avoid repeating past mistakes. I pointed out the advantages of vesting, questions around payment frequency and who will manage the calculations, user awareness of incentives, the lack of clarity on operational cost breakdowns, and more. The analysis was comprehensive
- Timing (9/10): I’ll reiterate my belief that any meaningful comment made before voting should receive at least a 5. I provided my feedback the same day the proposal was published.
- Clarity & Communication (8/10): My arguments were clearly structured and numbered for ease of understanding.
- Impact (5/10): While impact is difficult to measure precisely, my questions sparked responses from the proposal authors and drew attention from other delegates — indicating meaningful influence
3. Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc
I wrote that there are many open questions about its overlap with other initiatives, unclear financial allocations, competitiveness with existing solutions, and the lack of clarity on incentives and limits for participating projects.
I believe this is an important discussion to explore the pros and cons of the proposal, especially in light of the high operational costs.
- Relevance (5/10): I raised several questions and suggestions, some of which the author acknowledged — particularly regarding the interaction with AVI. Since each point received a response, all of them were clearly relevant.
- Depth of Analysis (7/10): As seen in the comment, I compared this solution with similar alternatives and provided examples, demonstrating a thoughtful and in-depth analysis.
- Timing (5/10): I’ll reiterate my belief that any meaningful comment made before voting should receive at least a 5.
- Clarity & Communication (5/10): My arguments were clearly structured and numbered for ease of understanding.
- Impact (4/10): It’s hard to assess this point precisely because no vote has yet taken place, but I believe it’s no less than 4
4. SOS Submission] {Merged: TBD} – Strategic Objectives
I put significant effort into analyzing and structuring all the proposals so that delegates could at least preliminarily assess their importance and likelihood of support, based on my summary table — which received positive feedback, including likes and direct praise from the post’s author.
- Relevance (6/10): This was a summary of all relevant information in a concise table format.
- Depth of Analysis (10/10): I believe this work was highly valuable and useful — including the key parameters, impact estimates, and my own assessments.
- Timing (5/10): It’s difficult to assess since there was no active vote, but in this case, it clearly deserves no less than a 5.
- Clarity & Communication (10/10): The presentation of such a large amount of information was extremely well-structured and easy to understand — arguably the most accessible way to digest it.
- Impact (6/10): Again, it’s hard to evaluate this precisely without a vote, but I believe it’s at least a 6, considering the likes and the positive mention by the author.
5. Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova
I also believe this comment should be taken into account, as it highlights an important aspect — the TVL of the chain — which is essential for understanding its relevance.
- Relevance (5/10): I pointed out a key metric — the chain’s TVL — to help assess how important or relevant it is.
- Depth of Analysis (6/10): I found data on the chain’s TVL and concluded that, due to its low value, it doesn’t justify allocating significant resources to it.
- Timing (10/10): It would be strange to give anything less than 10 here — I was the first to comment on this proposal.
- Clarity & Communication (6/10): The message was concise and to the point, with a clear conclusion.
- Impact (6/10): While there was no vote on this proposal, I believe the comment had influence and should be scored no lower than 6.
In conclusion, I believe all of the above comments were valuable — both for the DAO and for the delegates who referenced them or used them to inform their own reasoning and opinions.
I’m not saying that you need to evaluate all 44 of my messages — some of them were part of ongoing discussions — but it’s clear that several of these comments absolutely should have been considered. I genuinely don’t understand how they could have been overlooked