Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP)

[SEEDGov]

@pedrob

So is it correct that the >60% participation in on-chain votes in the last 90 days only applies for those delegates that never casted a vote before those 90 days, right? If I’ve been active before and suddenly decide to come back, I don’t need to be active for 90 days before being eligible.

Yes, if you suddenly decide to come back you still need to get >60% participation in on-chain votes in the last 90 days but if you achieve it before that term you will be eligible.

@pedrob

This can be tricky because, as a delegate, you can’t be sure that a proposal will go to Snapshot once it’s published. So, if I have limited time, which one should I respond to? All of them? How do I know it won’t be abandoned? Maybe we should establish a minimum content criterion for a proposal to go to Snapshot or to deserve feedback from the delegates.

This is already the case with the current version of the program; the scoring system currently includes only proposals that have reached Snapshot with their respective comments or CR. The introduction of tiers and the proposed changes to delegate compensation are specifically aimed at ensuring that delegates dedicate as much time as possible to the DAO.

Regarding the criteria you mention, we believe it is a valid approach that goes beyond the scope of this proposal. Proposals can reach Snapshot anytime, whether in a few days or several months. We believe this issue could be handled as a soft consensus, similar to the Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations.

@pedrob

It’s also not a bad thing for proposers to seek feedback before going to the forum (in fact, it’s good for them to talk with delegates and attend calls before publishing, so they can get some feedback from people with context). A potential downside is that encouraging feedback on the forum might make delegates less inclined to respond to DMs, possibly leading to fewer or even lower-quality proposals reaching the forum.

It’s not that we are against obtaining feedback prior to publishing in the forum, but we believe that this process should be reflected within the forum itself. A good example is the comment made by @JoJo, where he publicly shares part of the feedback he had previously provided, helping the community to see who contributed to the drafting of the proposal. This transparency is important for maintaining openness and trust in the process.

@cp0x

Did I understand correctly that regardless of the cost of the ARB token, the delegate has a threshold above which he cannot receive, even if his range is lower than what is specified in the proposal?

Correct, if the ARB price drops low enough, the delegate can receive only up to the pre-set Cap in ARB for his tier. This is to take care of ArbitrumDAO’s treasury.

@EzR3aL

There are so many rules and things to do and timings you need to take care of that it is hard to keep up with everything. So I would really like to see a graphic or dashboard that explains them in an easy manner.

Also as I understood the goal was to incentivize voting activity and more delegates joining the DAO. With the new threshold of over 60% I don’t see this goal being achieved. I’m rather saying less people will join from now on.

Being a full-time delegate isn’t something people do for free, but making it that hard to be eligible will probably stop most from being active at all.

Hello, thank you for your feedback. We kindly invite you to revisit the proposal, as the new threshold of 60% is based on votes within the last 90 days rather than a calculation of historical participation. This adjustment is specifically aimed at facilitating the onboarding of new delegates or those who were previously inactive. Additionally, the primary goal of the program is to encourage delegates to engage more professionally within ArbitrumDAO.

@Bobbay

Also is the proposal feedback weight not just encouraging people to write spammy comments? How do you filter their value?

A fair amount of the time, people write enough comments and discuss a proposal in-depth so I don’t see the need to write a comment. Not all cases, but most of the time, I have all the info I need.

What you say makes sense, and throughout the process, we have consistently aimed to prevent potential abuse, such as spam or non-contributive comments. We also understand that many questions and concerns are often addressed through the feedback provided by other delegates, making it unnecessary to repeat the same inquiries. For now, we are manually assessing the comments, but Karma is working on a tool that will help automate this evaluation process.

@Bobbay

Attending calls for additional weighting is quite tricky. A lot of delegates have other jobs.

This is exactly what we aim to achieve with these incentives—ensuring that, despite most delegates being involved in other DAOs and projects, they have enough motivation to dedicate a portion of their time to ArbitrumDAO.

Additionally, not attending the calls won’t penalize the delegate, as participation is rewarded with Bonus Points. These points are optional extras, so it’s up to each delegate to decide if they want to earn them or not.

@duokongcrypto

See the parameter adjustment changes here. Proposal Feedback (PF) here, seeing as the proposal really needs more visual commentary. Although I’m a representative of a non-English speaking region and rely mostly on translators to participate, I can see that the governance session would like more representatives to be involved in the overall proposal.

The Proposal Feedback segment already has some visual support:

@SEEDGov

Example 1

Example 2

Additionally, we will soon be organizing a special session with the delegates to thoroughly explain the proposal and address any questions that may arise.