I would like to raise a question about me being rewarded for [Non-Constitutional] Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order.
As I mentioned here:
Hey all!
I would like to raise an issue about me not being rewarded in the September Results for putting up a feedback survey about the DIP, as can be seen here.
Independently of the current DIP not rewarding comments contributions regarding the DIP itself, it can be argued that this feedback survey I put up was valuable for the DAO as a whole and should be rewarded with Bonus Points.
I would like to raise this to your consideration @SEEDGov team!
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!
well, it’s also obviously self-serving to you guys, the current service provider managing the DIP, to not reward contributions to improve/change the DIP, especially if those contributions show that delegates are not very happy with the way you’ve been running the DIP, like the negative Net Promoter Score that came from the survey I ran, shows:
but ok whatever… I knew from the get-go that my contributions to try to improve the DIP wouldn’t be rewarded because of this exception that you’ve created in the DIP rules.
but I had to dispute it because I think it’s unfair… especially because I bet if you ask all the other delegates that received bonus points for their contributions in september, they would say that this contribution of mine, by setting up and running the DIP survey, was potentially more impactful to the DAO than other contributions that were rewarded with BP, and definitely deserving of being rewarded. but please, @krst @Euphoria @TempeTechie @Tekr0x.eth @cp0x and @Curia tell me if I’m wrong in this bet here.
this is, in my opinion, just one of many ways the current DIP is failing our DAO.
but another, more scandalous way, is regarding the scoring of comments in the forum:
since… may I remind you that for the month of August, the first month under these four tigher DIP 1.7 criteria for awarding DF points, you guys awarded the following comments, with 8.4 DF points each:
this comment from Olimpio got him an extra ~ $500 USD in rewards in the August results
this comment from Areta also got them and extra ~$500 USD in rewards in August, but when it was posted in August, it didn’t even contained the reasoning for their August votes. that reasoning was added to the comment on September 3rd via an edit.
this comment from GFX Labs also got them an extra ~$500 USD in rewards in August.
this comment from Gauntlet also got them an extra ~$500 USD in rewards in August.
this comment from Arana Digital also got them an extra ~$500 USD in rewards in August.
this comment from Griff which is referring to their July votes, not even to their August votes, also got them an extra ~500 USD in rewards in August.
this comment from the UADP also got them an extra ~300 USD in rewards in August.
this comment from Karpatkey was also awarded with 8.4 DF points.
this comment from Tane was also awarded with 8.4 DF points.
and the worst example, Camelot, also got an extra ~$500 USD in rewards in August, from the same additional 8.4 DF points as all these comments above, while they haven’t published any comment on the forum during the month of August, as you can see in the official Karma Delegate Compensation dashboard.
they did publish this comment on September 1st, at 10:27 am UTC, but that was not in August, except if they are posting from Hawai or something.
so @SEEDGov, please tell me, how do you reconcile awarding these kinds of comments with 8.4 DF points each, spending at least an extra ~$5,000 USD from the DAO to reward them, and not reward my contributions to the DAO? does that feel neutral and fair to you? to anybody?
The problem with both this program and 2.0 is that ultimately all decisions are made by just one person, and once they’ve made a decision, there’s no way to change that opinion, even if they’re 100% wrong.
Of course, it’s easier to run any program this way, but with this approach, only loyal people will remain around the community, people who will never point out problems.
Without an objective view of processes, there’s no development, and without competition, there’s no future.
1 Like
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
errr… by failing to meet every single KPI you set up for yourselves?
1 Like
hey @SEEDGov, the October DIP1.7 results are 10 days late today. Can we have an ETA of when they will be shared? And when is the program going to be wrapped up? When can we expect a final results/learnings report? And when will the remaining money in the multisig be returned to the DAO treasury?
Hey @paulofonseca
As an initial clarification, we would like to remind you that, as approved in V1.7, there is no hard deadline established for delivering the results, although an estimated timeframe is provided for when disbursements are expected to occur:
That said, we can confirm that the results will be published later today. Edit: Results here !
Regarding the final report, as mentioned during the last GRC, it is expected to be released in mid-December.
Finally, we would like to remind you that we have no control over the multisig holding the funds and that the Arbitrum Foundation is currently proposing to make use of those funds. Therefore, we are not going to provide any response on that matter.
1 Like
well no. the DIP1.5/6/7 results were always supposed to be delivered by @seedgov before the 15th of the following month. and their payment transactions were historically signed within 24 hours when the DIP funds were under the control of the DAO run MSS initiative.
…but even with this policy cherry-picking of yours, this payment is already late according to this quoted estimated timeline, since this transaction is waiting to be signed for the last 4 days already and we are now past the last day of November.