Hey Paulo!
As you can see, we have never rewarded any contributions related to the DIP, regardless of whether they were positive or negative toward the Program Manager (PM):
-
Example 7 (this was actually a response to you, around eight months ago):
There’s even another example — a suggestion made by JamesKBH that was later implemented in DIP v1.6 on a month-to-month basis, yet it never received scoring or Bonus Points precisely because it was related to the DIP itself.
If we were to assign any type of scoring to your DIP-related contributions, we’d not only be breaking months of precedents, but we’d also be acting unfairly toward the rest of the delegates who have made valuable contributions over this time (including within this same thread).
Doing so would effectively grant you special treatment that other participants did not receive for their DIP-related contributions.
Regarding your comparison with other delegates:
We don’t believe it’s appropriate to compare your work to that of others.
For instance, cp0x received Bonus Points for participating in what we could call a “Nudge Season” under the AF’s DIP 2.0 initiative. The goal was to attract candidates to the Member Election phase, and cp0x succeeded in that. We don’t see how that could be compared to the work you’ve done.
Other teams you mentioned (such as Lampros or Curia) received points for developing, improving, and maintaining full dashboards — again, a very different type of contribution.
We also don’t think it’s fair to ask them publicly whether they believe their contributions were more or less impactful than yours.
About the alleged inconsistencies in the August results
We’d also like to clarify a few points regarding the examples you mentioned:
-
Olimpio: did not receive scoring for a single comment, but for submitting several rationales. We agree that some of them were brief, and that might have been a mistake on our side.
-
Areta: There were rationales publicly available on August 20th, as shown on the forum. Only some of them were later expanded through edits.
-
GFX, Gauntlet, Arana, Griff, UADP, Karpatkey, and Tane: indeed received additional scoring for submitting rationales. We can understand that some people may view a few of those as too brief to deserve scoring. We intended to keep some stakeholders engaged in DAO discussions and provide their rationales. It may not have worked perfectly in every case — perhaps we overcompensated in some — but we took the feedback seriously and made corresponding adjustments in the September results.
-
Camelot: This might have been a data or indexing error in the dashboard. We were unaware of this situation until your message. It’s odd, since we’re unable to assign scoring for a comment posted outside the current month. We’ll investigate this more deeply. Thanks for flagging this!
-
Finally, as stated in our post for August results, we openly acknowledged the feedback received from delegates through the Telegram group and admitted to some specific mistakes. Rather than “penalizing” those delegates, we decided to learn from the feedback and improve future assessments, which we reflected in the September results.
Having said all this, we want to summarize our position by emphasizing that we take community feedback very seriously and fully acknowledge that mistakes can happen throughout the process. We take responsibility for those mistakes. However, we also want to make it clear that throughout this entire process, we have acted with the utmost neutrality and consistency, and that under no circumstances would we ever act intentionally or in a targeted way to the detriment of any participant.
At the same time, a year is an eternity in the crypto world—especially within DAOs—and we believe that adaptability to changing contexts is a core value for any program meant to endure over time. That is precisely why we have always approached this as an iterative process. If challenges have emerged along the way, it’s because, instead of taking the comfortable route (which would have been to leave version 1.5 as it was), we chose the harder path of trying to raise the bar and improve the program.
Naturally, the outcome of these efforts cannot please everyone, and we understand there may be disagreements along the way. Yet, everything we have done so far has been driven by a single goal: to build the best possible program—for all members of the community—while ensuring the most responsible use of resources, in defense of the DAO’s economic interests.
We hope this clarifies your concerns.
As always, our DMs remain open.
Kind Regards,
SEEDGov