Non-Constitutional: Amendment to the Delegate Incentives Program

[danielM]

After reading the proposal and comments from other delegates, I want to share my thoughts and ideas.

@thedevanshmehta

After analyzing the delegate payment program, increasing voting power requirement by 10x from 50k to 500k ARB can increase economic foundation of the program, create a better environment for organic participation and bring us more in line with the delegate compensation programs at other DAOs. At the same time, we hear the feedback that smaller delegates between 50k to 500k ARB do as much or even more effort. The pathway is still open for them to join the program if they can secure an endorsement from a level 1 delegate.

How a 10x magnification can lead us to an increase economic foundation of the program, create a better environment for organic participation? The DIP has not even reached the 100 active members which it wanted to recruit for its participation.

@SEEDGov

• Achieve that 50 delegates receive incentives.
• Engage 100 delegates in the program.

Based on this, we need to think not about increasing the limits, but rather narrowing them so that new participants can get into the DIP. We need at least 100 active participants so that there is healthy competition, otherwise the program participants will degrade due to the lack of new ideas and the laziness of the participants due to a lack of motivation to do anything, since there is no competition.

@thedevanshmehta

• Increase the minimum voting power requirement to 500k ARB to follow the existing process of joining the delegate incentive program (level 1 delegates)
• Delegates between 50k - 500k ARB wishing to become part of the program need an endorsement from a level 1 delegate (level 2 delegates)

Further, such a division into first-class and second-class delegates undermines the foundations of equality of all participants in the DIP as such. I also want to note that this will lead to abuse and nepotism, when first-level delegates will recommend their friends or relatives as second-level delegates and rank them higher than third-party delegates with the same indicators. And this, in turn, will only harm the DAO and the DIP.

Next you write that:

@thedevanshmehta

Organic Participation: When we financialize the forum for a large proportion of contributors, we crowd out organic participation. We see a high influx of comments from delegates who need to check their tick box, which SeedLatam is on the lookout for, but it nonetheless adds more noise than signal to pay for participation from an average delegate. When level 2 delegates are accountable to level 1 delegates (who may withdraw their endorsement at any time) we will not face this issue as acutely.

As I already described above, we have a shortage of delegates and, in turn, a shortage of comments. You are now saying that there are too many empty comments, even when we do not have 100 participants in the program! This sounds very strange. On the contrary, we need more new ideas and statements.

Further, increase in limits and dividing delegates into castes will not lead to an improvement in Organic Participation. It seems to me on the contrary, this will lead to a decline in creativity and laziness due to the lack of competition.

Empty comments for show’s sake need to be dealt with differently. The idea occurred to me that we need to make it possible for each delegate to comment on each proposal only once. This will lead to the fact that each participant will think about what to write, saving other participants from unnecessary second, third, and so on comments from the same delegate about the same proposal.

Something like this. I don’t want to offend anyone here. Just my thoughts.
I am a small delegaor, just in case