[Non-Constitutional] Temporary Extension of the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) v1.7

Authors: @jojo, @jameskbh


Abstract

This proposal asks the Arbitrum DAO to authorize a temporary extension of the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) v1.7 for four months, covering the period 1 November 2025 – 28 February 2026, with retroactive coverage for November 2025.

The goal is not to redesign or revisit the underlying incentive model, but to maintain continuity while the Arbitrum Foundation and DAO stakeholders work on a successor framework (e.g., DIP 2.0). This follows two failed Snapshot attempts (more context here and here) in the prior months and avoids a governance incentive gap during a period of limited bandwidth (holidays, Devconnect, and broader ecosystem activity).

The DAO will choose between:

  • Reinstating DIP v1.7 fully,

  • Reinstating only Tier X from DIP v1.7, or

  • Doing nothing (ending incentives).

The extension will automatically deprecate earlier if a new incentive program is approved and activated before the end of February 2026. No compensation is requested for the proposers.


Motivation & Rationale

1. Avoiding a governance incentive gap

Under the currently approved parameters, DIP v1.7 has run his course covering until October 2025. In practice this means that, as of November 2025, the DAO lacks any active delegate incentive framework despite:

  • A recently approved and implemented v1.7 that introduced Tier X, reduced costs, and adjusted parameters based on several months of data and feedback
  • Two off-chain governance initiatives in the last two months (one led by the delegate Paulo Fonseca, one by the Arbitrum Foundation) that attempted to replace or substantially redesign the program, both of which failed at Snapshot, leaving the DAO with no running delegate incentive program

Without a temporary extension, there is a material risk that the momentum around governance participation — particularly among delegates reactivated or newly onboarded via DIP v1.7 and Tier X — will decay, and that several months of effort and coordination will be lost.

2. Bandwidth constraints and realistic timelines

Over the coming months the DAO will face:

  • Ongoing ecosystem events (e.g. Devconnect) that requires time and effort from AAEs and DAOs members
  • The usual December–January slowdown due to holidays across multiple regions and the DAO pause between the 18th of December to the 5th of January
  • The need for deep, open iteration on any successor program (such as DIP 2.0) to credibly address all feedback gathered so far in the last two months of discussions.

Given this context, it is unlikely that the AAEs and the DAO can:

  1. Converge on a new design,
  2. Run a full forum discussion and Snapshot, and
  3. Implement the new program operationally

before February 2026 in a way that feels legitimate and sustainable.

3. Ensuring continuity in DAO operations

We also want to be mindful about a general concern of simply “extending things forever.” There is value in stopping programs that we collectively think don’t work; there is also value in having periods of “detox”, like we did in between LTIPP/STIP.b and DRIP, for broader reassessment, discussion, and analysis of what happens to the ecosystem without certain programs. However, there are also strong arguments for continuity in core operational ones once the DAO has already invested in them:

  • The DIP has historically been treated as critical infrastructure to reach quorum and maintain high-quality delegate engagement.
  • DIP v1.7 in particular introduced Tier X, allowing ≥500k ARB delegates to be incentivized primarily for consistent voting, which has already helped bring new large delegates into active participation.
  • While we have just voted to change quorum with a DVP approach, governance doesn’t stop at just numbers and requirements on voting power, but is about keeping a certain degree of engagement that, so far, has been historically found through incentives.

The proposal is aimed to avoid losing previously dormant and not active delegates, allow for older ones that don’t have enough bandwidth to keep being engaged with the DAO, and above all minimize governance churn with a short, explicit extension that keeps the program alive while the DAO and the Foundation continue to work toward a re-scoped, widely supported successor program.


Specifications

1. Scope & Options

This proposal does not modify the internal mechanics of DIP v1.7. Instead, it offers two mutually exclusive implementation paths, to be selected via Snapshot:

Option 1 – “Reinstate DIP 1.7 fully”

  • Reinstate the entire DIP v1.7 framework (all tiers, scoring, eligibility, dispute rules, and program structure) exactly as approved in the original proposal
  • No changes to:
    • Tier thresholds or caps,
    • Scoring rubrics,
    • Participation requirements,
    • Terms & Conditions, dispute process, or eligibility rules,
    • Program Manager or data provider roles.

Option 2 – “Reinstate only Tier X from DIP 1.7”

  • Reactivate only Tier X from DIP v1.7 for delegates with ≥500,000 ARB VP, as original defined (focusing solely on voting activity, with the same TP range and reward caps).
  • All other tiers and subjective components of the program remain inactive during the extension period.
  • Management and reporting are limited to Tier X delegates and metrics.

In both cases, this proposal is strictly a temporary extension and does not prejudge or constrain the design of any future program (e.g. DIP 2.0 or alternative frameworks).


2. Timeframe & Retroactivity

  • Coverage period:
    • 1 November 2025 – 28 February 2026 (four full months).
  • Retroactive application:
    • November 2025 is covered retroactively once the Snapshot passes, in line with the precedent already established in DIP v1.7 for month-of-approval retroactivity.
  • Graceful handling of November data:
    • For November 2025, in case the Program Manager lacks complete data for certain metrics (notably Bonus Points for calls’ participation), those specific components may be omitted at the Program Manager’s discretion, with a short public explanation, while all other objective parameters are applied as usual.

We do think that the foundation should be able to survey delegates, gather feedback and propose a new program that is operationalised by end of January; to avoid further issues, we are adding February to the scope of the extension.


3. Operations & Management

The existing Program Manager for the DIP (SEEDGov) continues in the role for the duration of the bridge period. Karma will also continue to provide data, dashboards, and operational support as in DIP v1.7.

Due to the nature of the proposal, Program Manager and data provider are expected to start preparing again from early December 2025 so that, if the proposal passes, they can reconstruct November and December evaluations in a practical, best-effort manner.


4. Budget & Compensation

If Option 1 (full DIP 1.7) passes the Delegate rewards & program budget will be identical to DIP V.7 in term of

  • Reward ranges per tier,
  • ARB caps,
  • USD reference amounts and price methodology,
  • Dispute process and reporting cadence.

Operational costs will also remain the same, with the Program Manager and data provider compensation as defined in DIP v1.7.

If Option 2 (Tier X only) passes, the scope of rules, rewards, caps, ranges and requirements will only be related to Tier X as defined in DIP v1.7. Operational costs for the extension period will be the following:

  • Program Manager: 10,000 USD-equivalent in ARB per month
  • Karma (data provider): 7,250 USD-equivalent in ARB per month (same as of full DIP 1.7 being the scope of work the same)

No compensation is requested for the proposers of this extension (jojo, jameskbh).


Effective Period

If approved at Snapshot, this proposal:

  • Activates the chosen option (full DIP v1.7 or Tier X only) for November 2025 (retroactively), December 2025, January 2026, and February 2026.
  • If a new incentive program is approved and activated earlier, this extension will end immediately at the activation date.
  • Automatically sunsets on 28 February 2026, with no implied or automatic extension beyond this date and the expectation that the Arbitrum Foundation and stakeholders will have either:
    • A new delegate/contributor incentive framework ready for DAO approval before the holiday slowdown, or
    • A clear timeline to approve and launch such a program in early 2026.

If no successor program is ready by the end of February 2026, and there is the will to further extend DIP 1.7, a separate proposal and vote would be required: this vote does not pre-authorize further optimistically extensions.


Snapshot Vote

Proposed timeline

  • Forum discussion: from publication of this proposal until 4 December 2025
  • Snapshot vote: 4 December 2025 – 11 December 2025.

This timeline aims to:

  • Allow sufficient time for feedback and discussion in the forum,
  • Reach a clear decision before the December holiday slowdown,
  • Allow the Program Manager to resume data collection and evaluation activities in early December in a graceful way.

Voting options

On Snapshot, we propose the following options:

  1. Reinstate DIP 1.7 fully: activate the full DIP v1.7 program (all tiers, rules, and parameters) for November 2025 – February 2026.
  2. Reinstate only Tier X from DIP 1.7: Activate only Tier X from DIP v1.7 for November 2025 – February 2026; no other tiers or subjective components of the program are active.
  3. Abstain: counts toward quorum but expresses no preference between Options 1 and 2.
  4. Against: do not reactivate DIP v1.7 in any form; the DAO remains without a delegate incentive program until a new proposal is designed and approved.

Success Criteria

For the proposal to be considered successful, in addition to achieving the 3% quorum through the sum of Option 1 (Reinstate DIP 1.7), Option 2 (Reinstate only Tier X) and Option 3 (Abstain), the combined votes for Option 1 + Option 2 must be greater than the votes for Option 4 (Against).

If this condition is met, the extension passes, and the DAO implements whichever option receives more votes between Option 1 and Option 2.

If the condition is not met, the proposal is rejected, and no extension is enacted.

3 Likes

Would like to also acknowledge @TodayInDeFi for the internal discussion, contribution and feedback. We actually moved in parallel on the very same topic after the convo we had in the delegates’ chat last week about the DIP and worked simultaneously on the same proposal during the weekend (albeit in an independent way). They gracefully decided to not publish their own proposal, with a very similar scope, in favour of what you see live here, to avoid public confusion.

1 Like

$10k USD a month to do what exactly? If the option that wins is Option 2 (Tier X only), we don’t need a program manager at all. So we should spend precisely $0 USD a month on that.

If anything, the PM should only be rewarded if they attract more active voting power into the program, and the compensation for that BD effort should be awarded in a way that is tied to performance on that KPI only.

Otherwise, I don’t see why we should spend $10k a month on a PM that is not needed, for sure not at the tune of $10k a month and with no KPIs attached to that payment, in this Tier X only version of the DIP.

Also, it should be said, just like I mentioned in the telegram chat, that the Tier X parameters are not correctly calibrated right now. Delegates with 500k ARB in voting power get $1000 USD equivalent a month, and delegates with +4M ARB in voting power get $1500 USD a month. That is not a fair or proportional payment in regard to voting power, and it’s also not material enough to either maintain or attract new voters into the program, so if this proposal passes with Option 2, it won’t achieve the stated goals.

I recommend a change to this proposal, to increase the higher limit of Tier X compensation from $1500 USD to $3000 USD (x2) or even $4500 USD (x3) a month, so that payment is more proportional to the voting power that delegates cast and their respective contribution to achieving quorum.

2 Likes

I understand the general will about improving the previous program.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the delegates that contacted me, there is little to no space for changes.

  • this proposal comes after 2 failed proposals of a new DIP
  • this proposal is aimed to bring continuity to incentives for delegates into a new program
  • as far as I am aware, the Arbitrum Foundation is currently finishing surveying delegates after the previous vote to change the previous proposal they had
  • they also have mentioned how this new program should be discussed at ArbiCasa, and likely will be published soon
  • as we all know, publishing a proposal is different from having it voted and operationally ready.

The mission of this extension is just, as the name suggest, to extend the previous program in the two ways that are already proved and tested, and nothing more; any discussion on changes should probably be directed toward new programs the Foundation, or any other third party, will present.
If the DIP, as we have known it so far, is deemed not good enough for the DAO for the next 4 months, the delegates should vote either abstain or against in this specific instance and put effort, energy and time into new iterations instead of trying to change the previous program.

Again the goal here is not really to discuss a new program, just to extend the old one for continuity and give any willing and brave enough stakeholder the time and peace of mind to work toward the best outcome possible, without the pressure of having to go live “just” for the sake of having delegates’ incentives.

Hi @JoJo (and @jameskbh) for the DIP extension proposal.

We have one question: are there any critical and controversial proposals to be voted on in three months? The recent proposal has overwhelming support and its onchain proposal will likely pass. If there are no other controversial proposals (except for the new DIP proposal), the budget will be used only for a few voting activities, especially if the option of only Tier X being rewarded is chosen.

1 Like

errr… you… didn’t answer my question @JoJo.

…if the Option 2 is the one that gets approved on the vote, why should the PM get $10k USD a month? to do what exactly?

Hi @Tane, thanks for your question.

We are not aware of the voting schedule for the next few months, but this is not the point of this proposal. It is to proactively put the incentives in place in case they are needed, and to ensure the current level of support is sustained while the DAO figures out the next iteration of its program.

also, there will be no onchain proposals that finish in the month of November, so under the current rules, for delegates to qualify for Tier X rewards, they would have to be awarded the full 25 points of score for onchain vote participation, like it happened on the month of August where there were no valid Snapshot proposals:

What if the proposal instead says that OpCo will negotiate the Program Manager’s compensation if Option 2 is selected? That way, we don’t get stuck on this number.

One of OpCo’s responsibilities is to negotiate service providers compensations anyway.

We are skeptical about this part, so we believe our point stands. What if the DAO has only a few (or the worst, zero) proposals in these months? We also wonder what happens to the voting activities if there is no incentive for delegates with big voting powers. We would like the DAO to consider this as an experimental period.

Thanks for this disclaimer, though we think it’s better to indicate that two of you would be beneficiaries for the DIP extension if you keep your voting power during the period.

1 Like

i think we don’t need a PM for option 2. so first we should specify, in this proposal, why we need a PM for option 2, what would they do, and then we can figure out how much they should be paid, and if those $10k USD a month make sense or not.

also, if there’s an actual need for a PM, I think it would be so small, that the OpCo could just take on the little work that would be needed to manage this program with just a Tier X.

actually, all 3 of the quoted authors/contributors would be beneficiaries of an extension, @TodayInDeFi included.

I would also be a beneficiary, but I would vote against an Option 1 extension because the DIP 1.7 has already proved many times that it’s not working to achieve their own self-imposed goals, and maybe I would also vote against an Option 2 extension because Tier X is not correctly calibrated as I explained above, specially in a scenario where the @Arbitrum Foundation Rewarding Active Delegates (RAD) Program would reward delegates retroactively whenever it gets approved, starting from November 1st.

Posting from the RAD proposal from the Arbitrum Foundation as update on this extension.

2 Likes