When I first read the proposal, I had some concerns about how subjective the scoring system seemed. However, after reviewing the comments and feedback from contributors like 404 DAO, I’ve come to appreciate the maturity behind how this program is being executed.
I’ve been involved in the DAO for the past 9 months, participating in the program for about 6 months and receiving incentives for 4 of those.
Engaging in discussions, offering honest and transparent feedback, and connecting with other delegates even with lower voting power isn’t just time consuming. It also demands a lot of commitment and research to provide meaningful input and feedback that can genuinely improve the processes. (I’ll admit I spend a lot of time reading the forum, but sometimes I hold back on commenting as much as I could due to shyness.)
That said, the professionalism and maturity in how SEED has handled this program are clear. The proposals for improvement, gathering feedback, and the detailed rubric leave little room for error. Plus, the willingness to test and make adjustments based on feedback shows how these types of initiatives should be approached. It tackles a key issue: the lack of participation in governance, which isn’t just an Arbitrum problem, but something affecting most DAOs. Even Optimism, for example, currently only sees around 5% active participation in terms of voting power, according to Agora.
This new iteration is definitely more ambitious. It pushes for more professional involvement, with the potential to use available funds to bring on extra contributors. This way, we can continue developing and refining initiatives to reach the future outcomes we want to see in the DAO.
I voted FOR this proposal.