Hi @paulofonseca! How are you?
First of all, we’d like to say that we’re sorry you feel this was “targeted” at you, as you mentioned through one of the DAO’s communication channels. We can assure you that this is not the case — quite the opposite, actually. We’re human, and we know we can make mistakes. Last month, you raised a valid dispute, and after performing the necessary verifications, we acknowledged our mistake, amended your scoring, and the situation was resolved on good terms. We believe that speaks to the neutrality we strive to maintain as PMs.
Also, this month, the Curia delegation (who contributed the PRS for the double dip of your proposal) kindly reached out to us privately to suggest that we might have missed a contribution of theirs. They were right, and we subsequently updated their scoring.
Lastly, we’d like to highlight that, so far, you’ve received 85 Bonus Points across five different months and have qualified in 9 out of 11 months of the various DIP versions, making you one of the most rewarded delegates in the program.
Again, these precedents reflect our commitment to neutrality.
Having said that, we’d like to address your feedback:
-
Regarding your survey, as you correctly mentioned here, the current DIP does not reward actions related to the program itself, whether they are votes or contributions. Hence, the decision not to include it — consistent with what we’ve always done.
This also ties back to neutrality. As PMs, we’ve deliberately avoided assessing the quality of contributions directly related to the DIP itself to allow for the freest possible discussion. We believe it’s important that any participant can share their opinions openly, without the concern that doing so might affect their assessment, positively or negatively.
If we were to start assigning scores to some DIP-related contributions but not to others, it could easily be perceived as self-serving — as if we could be rewarding comments that “benefit” us. Avoiding that perception is part of maintaining neutrality in the process.
We genuinely appreciate your effort in conducting the survey, and honestly, we weren’t aware that you had incurred expenses for the Blocksurvey subscription. We’re sure this survey was useful for you in designing your own version of the DIP, and regardless of the outcome of the vote, we believe the DAO may want to reward contributors who, in good faith, design initiatives and dedicate time and effort to them. That’s at least our view.
-
Regarding your comment in the DVP-Quorum for ArbitrumDAO thread, unfortunately, none of the four criteria for being considered a valid contribution in the assessment were met:
-
Comments with tangible impact (e.g., concrete changes in proposals) will be automatically considered.
-
Contributions highlighted by proposers will also be valid. This includes pre-forum (draft) “invisible” contributions, as previously mentioned in the Rationale.
-
The Program Manager may also include outstanding contributions.
-
Key stakeholders (contributors with ≥500,000 ARB delegated*) may also publicly highlight or privately recommend a specific contribution to the Program Manager.
Therefore, we’re not in a position to determine the impact that your comment had on the discussion — if any — beyond the reply from the Arbitrum Foundation. Please note that this was mentioned in the individual reports for each delegate.
-
Once again, we’re sorry for any inconvenience, and as always, our DMs are open if you’d like to continue the conversation.
Thank you again for your feedback!