# Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Created:** [August 26, 2024, 4:25pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-delegate-incentive-program-dip/26496 "2024-08-26T16:25:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 158
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2025, 1:37pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-delegate-incentive-program-dip/26496/158 "2025-07-09T13:37:12Z")
Hey @cp0x ! Thanks for your thoughtful message and for taking the time to walk through each of the stated goals. Let us address each of the points raised, one by one. > [@cp0x](#): > > - Goal: **“Achieve that 50 delegates receive incentives”** > This target appears to remain unmet. The number of delegates receiving rewards has declined substantially since January — from 50+ to just 26 last month. Of those, only 9 were lower-voting-power delegates, down from 33 in January. This trend seems to move in the opposite direction of the goal and intention of the program. > - Goal: **“Engage 100 delegates in the program”** > While new delegates continue to register, engagement remains limited. Many are not active in discussions, likely due to the lack of clarity and predictability regarding incentives. The total number of active participants has grown from 63 to only 64 since January — a negligible change. When this proposal was approved, it was under the assumption that the DAO would continue growing in both delegates’ participation and responsibilities. The target of “50 delegates” was meant in the context of having 100+ contributors competing for those spots. With the DAO’s shifting priorities and reduced operational burden for delegates, we believe this original goal may no longer be fully aligned with the current context. It’s important to note that this proposal was approved nearly 9 months ago, and naturally, in a fast-moving environment like crypto, some expectations become outdated. Also, SEEDGov does not control delegate activity nor the overall level of engagement in the DAO. Therefore, in months with less activity, a smaller number of incentivized delegates is not only expected — it’s also reasonable. Otherwise, we’d be distributing funds just for the sake of it. Regarding the numbers: as shown in the May report, 78 delegates applied to the program — up from 61 in October. That’s a **27.86%** increase in registered participants over the first 7 months of the program. While not all delegates are actively contributing, engagement — measured by participation in the program — has indeed increased. Many delegates may be passive or less active due to uncertainty in rewards, which is something we’re actively addressing. But in terms of total applicants, the program is growing. > [@cp0x](#): > > Goal: **“Achieve an average Total Participation (TP) of 80% within six months”** > Unfortunately, the data shows movement away from this target. The average TP was 72.41% in January, but dropped to 59.78% last month following program changes. This suggests the revisions may not have had the intended positive impact. This might be a misunderstanding: the **Average TP Rate** is calculated only among **rewarded** delegates, not all applicants. Including all applicants would be misleading, especially since many towards the bottom of the ranking are no longer active in the Arbitrum DAO. Between November and May, the **average TP rate among rewarded delegates** was **79.23%** , with 19,411.62 points awarded across 245 rewards. So this KPI can be reasonably considered met. That said, we agree the DIP needs new KPIs that better reflect the DAO’s evolving context, and we plan to introduce updated metrics in future iterations. > [@cp0x](#): > > Goal: **“Introduce improvements to the program after six months”** > While this has been formally fulfilled, the effectiveness of those changes is debatable based on the trends above. This has been formally met. And based on the rationale provided and the data in our [midterm report](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-6-from-engagement-to-rewards-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-the-delegate-incentives-program/29475), we believe the changes achieved their intended goals. Naturally, we welcome feedback to continue refining them. ### On Operational Execution > [@cp0x](#): > > A few words on operational execution: > **“Payments to delegates are expected to be processed in ARB from the MSS between the 15th and 16th of each month”** > Unfortunately, this timeline hasn’t been consistently met: > > - November: Paid on Jan 4 > - December: Jan 21 > - January: March 4 > - February: March 26 > - March: April 25 > - April: May 22 > - May: As of July 1, no report or payment has been published Let us provide context on some of the delays: - **November** : All delegates had to go through compliance, which delayed payments. - **January** : Limited team availability due to holidays pushed results and payments. - **May** : Payments were [executed](https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x2c58d334d7199b9e56934a27ad28404b4c527fa307473bdc9bdbdfcaf2170337) on June 26, though the public thread hasn’t yet been updated — we apologize for the oversight. A few additional considerations: - When we originally set that timeline, it was admittedly optimistic. This was the first time we would fully assess contributions (beyond mere comment-counting), and we weren’t sure how long it would take. - Even after adding **individual reports** — a major additional workload — we’ve maintained similar delivery times. - There’s a **4-day dispute period** , and SEEDGov no longer controls payments directly — the AF now manages execution, which adds 1–2 days of buffer. - The phrasing used was “ **expected** ” rather than “ **guaranteed** ”, acknowledging some flexibility in timelines. We believe it’s more important to ensure accurate and fair assessments than to optimize purely for speed. > [@cp0x](#): > > “ **The DIP administrator will address the issue promptly, with a resolution expected within 4 days.** ” > This expectation has also been difficult to uphold: > > - May: Dispute started June 17, reply June 23, no follow-up (6+ days) > - April: May 15 → May 20 (5 days) > - March: Final delegate message was never answered > - February: Several messages were left unaddressed > - January: Jan 20 → Jan 25 (5 days) We aim to address all disputes **within four days** , collectively. Most of the examples cited fall within that range or are slightly beyond it. As for follow-ups, we often **choose not to engage** in extended back-and-forth after providing a final decision, especially when the dispute involves subjective parameters. Once a judgment has been made and communicated clearly, the conversation has, by definition, concluded. > [@cp0x](#): > > Again, I share all of this in the spirit of transparency and constructive feedback — not as criticism for its own sake, but to help the program succeed in the long term. Thank you to everyone involved for the ongoing work We truly appreciate the feedback and the spirit in which it was delivered. We also welcome any additional questions or clarifications in private — especially related to metrics — as we believe it’s important to avoid the spread of inaccurate data. Thanks again for the engagement and commitment to improving the program. Warm regards, **SEEDGov** --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-delegate-incentive-program-dip/26496)._