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

[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.