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

[JoJo]

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

@JoJo

Finally, want to cross post in relation to the proposal that me and @jameskbh posted in the forum related to the extention of previous DIP.
While I want to be clear that the proposal was crafted in a weekend, after asking if this or any other DIP proposal would have been voted before the Christmas pause and without knowing it would have been put up for public discussion, I don’t personally feel like is necessary to go for a contemporary vote of both. The goal of the extention was, as mentioned in the original post, to give time to AF and other to craft this very proposal.
It seems like it has internalized most of the feedbacks of delegates; would also add how it lacks a bit some details, like rationality for certain decision, simulation based on the past year of activity, and projection on the future in different scenarios, but this part is also partially compensated by the flexibility of having OpCo ability to change parameters on a per quarter basis and eventually hire a service provider for management.

My invite, for the foundation, is to put out any other detail regarding simulations, history, decisions that were changed, or any other piece of info related to this final version that can put all the delegates on the same page for a favourable vote if they deem the program good enough.

As I see it now, extention would go on vote in the following scenarios:

• in case the RAD proposal is discussed, goes on vote on snapshot the 4th of december, and the 11th we see that the vote fails
• in case the RAD proposals is not put up for a vote before the 11th of december (last legal date for votes accordingly to the pause we collectively decided upon that starts the 18th of the same month).

That said, there is no interest in having concurrent proposals here. Goal is not for advocating for different frameworks and scenario, but to have something good enough in place, where good enough means

• consensus from most delegates
• predictability of payout that allows to growth the stash of active delegates
• avoid falling in an apathy of voters that, on a timeframe long enough, could create security issues.