As we don’t like to read long posts, I will present my comment as short as possible:
TL;DR: We need to do a better job gathering data, and present the actual values to foster a proper discussion.
There is a difference between being “eligible” and an “active participant”. “Eligible” means that the candidate has met all the criteria. For the current version, v1.5, “active participants”, meaning who received payment, in November were 41, and in December 49.
So, from a pool of 67 eligible participants, we still didn’t fill the 50 slots.
And why that happens? For a series of reasons: There is a minimal threshold of work that needs to be done, some delegates move to other places, etc, etc. Not my point here.
About the cost of the program: Despite this being removed from the original post, that was one of the key aspects moving this forward, so I want to touch it briefly as well.
This value was set assuming all 50 delegates would receive the max amount in the program (And extensively discussed when the proposal was up). And was one of the key criticisms of it presented in the original post.
Now, If we get the actual numbers so far, In November the value spent was 224,659.40 USD, and December was $260,867.73 USD. What gives you an average of 242,763.56 USD. Even assuming the higher value (more close to 50 slots, at reflects the payment of 49 delegates), the one-year projection is 3,130,412.76 USD.
In short: The costs are way lower than 4.2m and the proposed (now deprecated) action would not have the impact advertised.
And why that happens? Not my point again, but there is an extensive framework to judge the delegate’s contribution, helping to steer their energy towards things that enhance ArbitrumDAO governance (and processes, etc, etc).
Final note:
Discussions help to improve things overall, and I’m glad it does that. And, IMO, it is with a larger set of delegates that we will be able to achieve better results. For example, it is good to have delegates, part of the mentioned incentive program, helping to correct things that are wrong and improving proposals in general.
If we are worried about noise, there are tools in place to filter it, and @SEEDGov is doing an amazing job there, together with the Arbitrum Foundation (for the forum in general).
Sources: [DIP v1.5]Delegate Incentive Program Results (November 2024)