The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and opting for v1.5.
Introducing qualitative criteria is a step in the right direction. Even though the assessment will be subjective, we still believe it’s better than relying merely on quantitative criteria, especially given the increased number of rewards delegates can receive.
However, we’d like to suggest that if things do not work out as expected and there are complications with using subjective criteria, the program must be flexible and should revert to v1.1. We want SEEDGov to be responsible for deciding whether or not the program should revert to v1.1 based on feedback from delegates and doing so at their discretion.
We also want to raise some points that we want to see addressed before the proposal moves to an onchain vote:
-
We find that being eligible by having a Participation Rate (Karma) >60% is too low of a standard when thinking of the considerable amount of money a delegate can get through the program. We’d suggest increasing the threshold even further (e.g., 80%) and allowing program managers the discretion for exceptions in case a delegate falls below that for important reasons (e.g., being in the hospital and missing a vote).
-
As far as the bonus % points for attending the monthly governance calls and the biweekly proposal discussion calls go, we want to suggest extending the idea to other DAO initiatives with a small twist; instead of having to attend ALL calls, delegates should be able to get a bonus percentage (maybe another 2.5% trimmed from elsewhere) for attending and contributing to an initiative they choose from a list of eligible initiatives that the program managers maintain. For example, the ‘Incentives Detox’ proposal introduced an Incentives Working Group that delegates could choose to attend.
-
DAO activities are outlined as
…feedback on proposals, attending to Governance Calls, maintaining high voting participation on Snapshot and Tally, and providing a rationale for such votes…
We want to point out that the responsibilities of delegates go beyond that. It’s difficult to define or measure it clearly, and that’s why we won’t suggest doing so at this point, but it’s worth keeping in mind that the above activities are, in our mind, a small portion of the overall activities a delegate should be involved in.
-
There are three TP tiers proposed:
- Tier 3: TP between 65% and 70%. Compensation range: $3,000 to $3,250. ARB cap: 8,000.
- Tier 2: TP between 70% and 85%. Compensation range: $4,200 to $5,100. ARB cap: 12,000.
- Tier 1: TP between 85% and 100%. Compensation range: $5,950 to $7,000. ARB cap: 16,500.
But in the above setup, if a delegate is exactly at 85% participation, would they get $5,100 or $5,950? We don’t understand why, in %, a tier begins where the previous tier ended, but in $ terms, a tier starts at a gap from the previous tier’s end ($950 from Tier 3 to 2, $850 from Tier 2 to 1).
Overall, we’re happy to see SEED iterating on the previous program based on learnings and feedback and attempting to provide options that introduce qualitative criteria. We’d be happy to work with them to address the aforementioned points before the proposal can go to an onchain vote.