[DIP v1.7] Delegate Incentive Program Results (August 2025)

[SEEDGov]

August Participants

For the August iteration of the program, 82 participants enrolled, 51 of whom met the requirements to qualify.

You can see the full list here.

Parameters Breakdown

Snapshot Voting

During the month, there were a total of 1 Snapshot Votes, which was the 1.7 DIP Proposal.

As an internal policy, we never counted DIP proposals/discussions so not to fall into a COI when evaluating results. But we also acknowledge that in this particular case, we would be penalizing DIP participants because of an internal policy.

For this reasons and in exceptionality terms, we’ve decided to give every participant the totality of Snapshot points for the month of August.

Tally Voting

For this month, a total of 2 Tally Votes were considered for TV scoring. It is important to note that only those proposals that ended in August counted. It’s important to clarify that proposals with the tag [CANCELED] are not counted for DIP. These are the proposals that were considered:

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Remove Cost Cap, Update Executors, Disable Legacy USDT Bridge

2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway

Delegate Feedback

In the Karma Dashboard you can find the detailed breakdown of your Delegate Feedback.

Presence in Discussion Multiplier

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 August, 3 discussions were considered:

1. [Constitutional] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements

2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Remove Cost Cap, Update Executors, Disable Legacy USDT Bridge

3. [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 50 Dia

To get the multiplier a delegate needed:

For 5% (1.05) = 1 comment (≥25%)

For 10% (1.10) = 2 comments (≥50%)

For 20% (1.20) = 3 or more comments (≥75%)

It is important to note that we considered JamesKBH feedback, so for the multiplier calculation, if the delegate made a valid comment on that topic/thread in the previous month, it was considered in the current month.

Delegate Feedback Reporting

You can check the Delegate Feedback Reporting in our Notion page.

We want to keep iterating these reports with community feedback. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to reach us.

August Results

You can see the dashboard with the results implemented by Karma here.

Of all the participating delegates, 28 were eligible to receive compensation.

• Tier 1: 1 delegates.

• Tier 2: 4 delegates.

• Tier 3: 11 delegates.

• Tier X: 12 delegates.

Delegate	TIER	PUSD
L2Beat	1	4,200.00
MaxLomu	2	2,828.70
Tekr0x.eth	2	2,603.94
Lampros DAO	2	2,600.39
paulofonseca	2	2,535.11
TodayInDeFi	3	1,928.51
TempeTechie	3	1,926.44
Camelot	3	1,885.20
olimpio	3	1,885.20
Gauntlet	3	1,868.00
Areta	3	1,868.00
AranaDigital	3	1,868.00
GFXLabs	3	1,868.00
0xDonPepe	3	1,857.78
Griff	3	1,841.86
Tamara	3	1,812.51
Uniswap-Arbitrum Delegate Program	X	1,392.27
GMX	X	1,383.33
jameskbh	X	1,347.53
Karpatkey	X	1,340.92
MUX Protocol	X	1,333.33
BlockworksResearch	X	1,333.33
Reverie	X	1,333.33
Merlyn Labs	X	1,333.33
Bob-Rossi	X	1,304.43
APE	X	1,206.74
Jojo	X	1,080.24
ultra	X	1,024.22
		50,790.65

Compensations in USD: $50,790.65

Bonus Points

This month, Bonus Points were awarded to several delegates for their attendance at the call, as voted in v1.7.

Adding Bonus Points for delegates who attends to the “Arbitrum Governance Report Call” (monthly) and the “Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call.”

• For the monthly call, 1,25% BP will be awarded for attendance.

• For the bi-weekly calls, 1.25% BP will be awarded for attending each call.

This month, there were 1 GRCs and 1 bi-weekly call took place as usual, with a maximum possible score of 2.5% as a result. In total, 42 delegates received Bonus Points for attending the Bi-weekly Governance Calls.

Extraordinary Contributions

This month, five delegates were awarded Bonus Points for their contributions to Arbitrum DAO:

• L2Beat received 30 Bonus Points. 20 for their contribution in the [Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge and 10 for organizing the GRC Calls.

• Lampros DAO received 30 Bonus Points for their contributions to the Orbit Chains Dune Dashboard, hosting a walkthrough of it on Twitter, continuing to work on their Dune Spellbook and creating an Arbitrum Orbit Chains Revenue Dashboard.

• Paulo Fonseca received 30 Bonus Points for his initiative [Non-Constitutional] Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order.

• Tamara received 17 Bonus Points for introducing the community to Session App.

• TempeTechie received 17 Bonus Points for introducing the community to Session App and 5 points for their contributions to the SOS process.

• Tekr0x received 25 Bonus Points for their contributions to ETHWarsaw and 5 Bonus Points for his continuous contributions to the MiniApps in Farcaster initiative.

Incentives to delegates (August)

The total cost destined to the delegates this month will be 50,790.65 USD.

You can check our Public Table to see the detailed breakdown of delegates’ results.

Costs

We track all cost data for greater transparency in our Payment Distribution Thread.

New Members of the Program

Now that we are working with this new version, 1.7, we have doubled down our Business Development effort to onboard as much Voting Power as we can to the program. Remember, you can apply anytime.

New members of the program who will join in September are:

• Whizwang

• Mihal

[CALL TO ACTION!] Dispute Period

As stated in the proposal, delegates have a timeframe of 4 days to dispute objective parameters as call attendances and votes.

To raise a dispute, delegates should do so by posting a message in the forum using the following template:

Title: Dispute

Username

Reason for dispute (please detail)

[paulofonseca]

Title: Dispute

Username: @paulofonseca

Reason for dispute (please detail):
I would like to receive bonus points for having driven this initiative for the past few months.

[Non-Constitutional] Let's get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order

Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order Non-Constitutional Abstract To adopt Huddle01 Meet as our default video call tool for all DAO calls. The Huddle01 Meet Business plan provides a web3 native video call solution of up to 500 participants per video meeting, unlimited recording storage on IPFS, token-gated DAO meetings only for wallets with the “ARB” token or other tokens, multi-streaming to multiple platforms like X.com, Youtube and Twitch at the same time, and a custom arbitrum.hu…

I coordinated with the Huddle01 team, I setup the arbitrum.huddle01.app business account and paid for 5 months of it out of my own pocket. I wrote the proposal and figured out a way to test the adoption of Huddle01 Meet by the DAO, I was present in every Arbitrum DAO call done through Huddle to onboard people and check for product issues, and I provided all product feedback to the Huddle team, and I did all of that voluntarily.
Finally, in this month of August I wrapped up the experiment given that the DAO naturally drifted away from using Huddle01.

Given that both Tamara and TempeTechie got bonus points for doing a DAO call to present Session to the delegates, I believe this initiative of mine is of similar nature and way higher effort and value for the DAO and for Arbitrum.

P.S.: Also, this notion page is not publicly available.

@SEEDGov

You can check the Delegate Feedback Reporting in our Notion page.

[0xDonPepe]

Title: Dispute

Username: @0xDonPepe

Reason for dispute:

I’d like to dispute the zero score given to my comment. As shown in the [Constitutional] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements thread, and acknowledged by the Arbitrum Foundation, my contribution directly identified and corrected the discrepancy in terminology between “circulating ARB” and “Votable Tokens,” which led to the proposal text being modified accordingly. This demonstrates that my input had a direct impact on the outcome of the discussion. Assigning a zero score doesn’t reflect the material influence my comment had on improving the proposal.

[TodayInDeFi]

Title: Dispute
Username: @TodayInDeFi

Reason for dispute:

Thanks for your support with the program. Would like to clarify the calculation of bonus points. There were 1 GRC and 1 bi-weekly call, so the maximum possible score should be 5% instead of 7.5% here according to the method specified in the post with 2.5% BP for each call attendance.

@SEEDGov

Bonus Points

This month, Bonus Points were awarded to several delegates for their attendance at the call, as voted in v1.5.

Adding Bonus Points for delegates who attends to the “Arbitrum Governance Report Call” (monthly) and the “Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call.”

• For the monthly call, 2,5% BP will be awarded for attendance.
• For the bi-weekly calls, 2.5% BP will be awarded for attending each call.

This month, there were 1 GRCs and 1 bi-weekly call took place as usual, with a maximum possible score of 7.5% as a result. In total, 42 delegates received Bonus Points for attending the Bi-weekly Governance Calls.

However, according to DIP v1.7 Proposal, bonus points for each call should be 1.25% instead of 2.5%, so a little a bit confused and would like to check how the BPs for call attendance should be calculated.

@SEEDGov

2. Bonus Points (BP) – Extra 30 points

Awarded for exceptional contributions, such as attending governance calls.

• 1.25% Bonus Points per Governance Report Call (GRC) attended.
• 1.25% Bonus Points per Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call attended.
• Max Bonus Points per month from attending calls is 5%. The Program Manager reserves the right to make exceptional changes to this limit and to the specific calls to be rewarded.

Governance Activity	New Bonus
Governance Report Call	1.25% BP per call
Open Discussion of Proposals Call	1.25% BP per call
Max Bonus Cap	5% BP

• The rest is reserved for extraordinary contributions.
• A DIP Participant can only get a total of 30 points between both concepts.

Parameters Overview Table

Metric	Weight	Formula
Participation Rate (PR)	15	(PR90 * 15) / 100
Snapshot Voting (SV)	20	(SV(Rn) / SV(Tn)) * 20
Tally Voting (TV)	25	(TV(Rn) / TV(Tn)) * 25
Voting Power Multiplier (VPM)	0.8 to 1	0.00000005063 * Delegate VP (monthly avg) + 0.7974685
Delegate Feedback (DF)	40	(Σ rubric score / 50) * 40 * Multiplier
Bonus Points (BP)	Extra	+30 TP

In addition, we attended 1 GRC and 1 Bi-weekly call in August, but we only got 1.74 BPs, so would like to also check how the BPs were calculated as the 5% cap of (PR90+SV+TV)*VPM+DF should be 3.49, which is higher than the 2.5 BPs we should have received.

@SEEDGov

Total Participation Points Calculation Steps

It combines all the aforementioned parameters to calculate the delegate’s overall score and it follows these steps:

1. Compute PR90, SV, and TV individually.
2. Sum these and apply the Voting Power Multiplier (VPM): (PR90 + SV + TV) * VPM
3. Add Delegate Feedback Score (DF).
4. Add Bonus Points (BP) - (Max 5% of (PR90+SV+TV)*VPM+DF).
5. Final result determines the delegate’s performance or Total Participation score for compensation.

Appreciate if the team may kindly clarify. Please correct me if I’m wrong. thanks!

[SEEDGov]

Hello everyone,

First, we would like to remind you that, since the approval of version 1.7 of the program, disputes related to subjective parameters (i.e., Delegates’ Feedback and Bonus Points) have been deprecated.

This means that from now on, any questions, concerns, or feedback regarding these parameters should be directed to the thread [DIP v1.7] Delegate Incentive Program Questions and Feedback or via DMs to @Ibupirac600 – Gianluca, our Program Manager.

Separately, we are aware that some delegates have raised concerns regarding the methodology used to score the Delegates’ Feedback parameter. As 1.7 introduced changes in the way DF is measured, we’ll plan to keep reviewing the procedure and make all the necessary adjustments to make the results as representative as possible.

That said, we will address the three disputes submitted (two of which concern subjective parameters) as an exception, given that this is the first month under the new version. In particular, we recognize that in two of these cases, there were omissions on our part during the assessment process. It is essential to note that the Program Manager is authorized to make adjustments to the published monthly results.

---

Paulo Fonseca

@paulofonseca

I coordinated with the Huddle01 team, I setup the arbitrum.huddle01.app business account and paid for 5 months of it out of my own pocket. I wrote the proposal and figured out a way to test the adoption of Huddle01 Meet by the DAO, I was present in every Arbitrum DAO call done through Huddle to onboard people and check for product issues, and I provided all product feedback to the Huddle team, and I did all of that voluntarily.
Finally, in this month of August I wrapped up the experiment given that the DAO naturally drifted away from using Huddle01.

Hello @paulofonseca!

Thank you for the feedback, and we would like to apologize for the omission of this initiative in the assessment. As we had mentioned in previous reports, we were awaiting the outcome of the proposal, which initially had the following timeline and expected costs:

@paulofonseca

Steps to Implement

1. Buy a business account to reserve the arbitrum subdomain
   I’ve took the initiative to purchase the arbitrum.huddle01.app Business account a little more than a month ago, to reserve the subdomain and to test out the Huddle01 Meet app.
2. Integrate the community-run shared Google calendar by L2Beat, with the Huddle01 Meet Google Apps Extension
   This is in progress and I will sync with @Sinkas in ETH Bucharest this week, to figure out all the details in-person.
3. Test the setup for 2 weeks by transferring the DAOs recurring calls like the Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call and the GRC - Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call to use a Huddle01 Meet video call link. (This needs to be communicated to a larger audience, here in the forum on the posts for each call, in the delegates telegram private chat, and even on x.com maybe with the @arbitrumdao_gov account).
4. Schedule all new calls using a Huddle01 Meet link instead of any other video call software, unless specifically required by the scheduler for a reason deemed valid enough by the current community-run shared calendar managers.
5. SUCCESS!?!? =)

Timeline

Until April 7th – Get social consensus here in the forum to see if there is alignment on moving forward with this idea, and execute step 2 outlined above.
Between April 7th and 22nd – If there’s social consensus, execute step 3 of the implementation steps above to test out the new setup with all delegates in all types of calls already scheduled in the calendar. These 2 weeks should be enough to cover all different calls we do, including the security council election call.
Between April 22nd and 24th – Decide if we should put up to a vote a policy to enforce video calls in Arbitrum DAO to be done via Huddle01 Meet and/or for the recordings of those calls to be stored in IPFS.
On April 24th – If so, create a policy to proceed to a temperature check offchain voting on Snapshot to ratify the decision.
Between April 24th and May 1st – Policy content available for discussion here in the forum
On May 1st – Post the offchain vote on Snapshot.

Overall Cost

Free for the first 6 months, starting April 27th. Then $50 USD a month, and that expense could potentially be paid by the @Arbitrum Foundation, as with the other software subscriptions they already pay for the DAO.However, we omitted the fact that you formally deprecated the initiative in August.

However, we omitted the fact that you formally deprecated the initiative in August.

Regarding the outcome and impact of the initiative, we would like to highlight a few points:

• In terms of impact, while the proposal ultimately did not move forward due to several reasons likely beyond Paulo’s control, it is worth noting that between April and June, approximately 14 governance calls were hosted on the platform, mainly Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Calls and SOS Discussion Calls.

• We see as a positive thing that the participant actively promoted the use of a platform deployed natively on Arbitrum. Several stakeholders mentioned that, had it not been for Paulo’s proposal, they might never have considered trying Huddle. This underscores the importance of the DAO supporting builders who choose Arbitrum over other chains.

• We are aware that Paulo was in constant communication with the Huddle team, working to address issues with the platform.

• We were able to verify that Paulo did, in fact, cover 5 months of the platform’s subscription out of pocket. Since there was no commitment from Arbitrum DAO to use the platform, the 6-month free trial was not granted by Huddle. While it is not the DAO’s responsibility to reimburse expenses from a deprecated initiative, we believe it is valid to consider this detail when conducting the assessment.

In summary, considering that the initiative was practically active for at least three months, that it had a visible material impact, and that it represented an effort to promote the use of Arbitrum-native platforms, we would like to recognize the participant with 30 Bonus Points.

Don Pepe

Hello @0xDonPepe !

Thank you again for the feedback, and we would also like to extend our apologies for this omission.

@0xDonPepe

I’d like to dispute the zero score given to my comment. As shown in the [Constitutional] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements thread, and acknowledged by the Arbitrum Foundation, my contribution directly identified and corrected the discrepancy in terminology between “circulating ARB” and “Votable Tokens,” which led to the proposal text being modified accordingly. This demonstrates that my input had a direct impact on the outcome of the discussion. Assigning a zero score doesn’t reflect the material influence my comment had on improving the proposal.

As you noted in your comment, this contribution had a material impact on the outcome of the proposal. We would like to add our perspective on your input:

• We agree with your initial remark that it was a “small detail,” but also a relevant one, as there is a difference between the concepts of circulating ARB and votable ARB.

• The recently approved version 1.7 of the program explicitly outlines criteria for valid comments, including contributions that have a tangible impact on the proposal in question.

• This means the comment must be considered valid, after which the Program Manager assigns a score based on the rubric used in the monthly evaluation.

Considering all of these points, it is clear that your contribution deserves recognition. We have therefore updated your score accordingly to reflect this situation.

Today in Defi

Hello @TodayInDeFi !

Thank you for submitting your dispute.

In this case, there was an error in the publication of the monthly report, where the Bonus Points percentages for calls were mistakenly taken from version 1.5.

The correct percentages are those outlined in version 1.7, namely:

• For the monthly call, 1.25% BP is awarded for attendance.

• For the bi-weekly calls, 1.25% BP is awarded for attending each call.

During August, there was 1 GRC and 1 bi-weekly call, resulting in a maximum possible percentage of 2.5%. This translates to 1.742 Bonus Points in your case, given that your Base Score was 69.69.

[TodayInDeFi]

Thank you so much for your reply! Would like to further clarify.

The base score should be 69.96 instead of 69.69 from 0.83 * (15+20+25) + 20.16 = 69.96

@SEEDGov

Total Participation Points Calculation Steps

It combines all the aforementioned parameters to calculate the delegate’s overall score and it follows these steps:

1. Compute PR90, SV, and TV individually.
2. Sum these and apply the Voting Power Multiplier (VPM): (PR90 + SV + TV) * VPM
3. Add Delegate Feedback Score (DF).
4. Add Bonus Points (BP) - (Max 5% of (PR90+SV+TV)*VPM+DF).
5. Final result determines the delegate’s performance or Total Participation score for compensation.

And the 5% of 69.96 should be 3.498 as the bonus point cap, which is higher than the maximum bonus point for Aug of 2.5%.

Would like to check why we got 1.742 instead of 2.5. Thanks!