I appreciate the efforts to refine the previous DIP and agree with what’s presented to the DAO.
I want to amplify what @KlausBrave & @Englandzz_Curia mentioned about being inclusive of the global time & not keeping delegates from specific regions at a disadvantage.
The KPI of reaching more delegates who are incentivized will cross the 50 delegate benchmark and this proposal shall have provisions to address in case of the higher number of delegates scoring a TP of 65%, as pointed out by @0xDonPepe
The threshold of 60% in the last 90 days shall attract more delegates in v1.1 than the previous DIP, but will also have higher chances of Sybil and delegates with less context about what happened in the DAO previously. I am sure we cannot have a Delegate screening. Still, without the context of history, there is less chance of high-value participation and there the Proposal Feedback’s subjectivity will play a crucial role. I suppose SEEDGov’s team efforts in refining those will be way more than currently estimated, and provisions shall be made for that by capping the number of proposals that the current resources mentioned in the proposal can handle.
Also, the clarity on the date on which this price shall be considered? The delay between publishing the monthly report and sending the ARB would create a different $ARB sent than what will be in the sheet. So, will the sheet be published after sending the ARB to respective delegates or have a cut-off date as the 15th Feb price will be for January month pay and on 15-16th Feb the ARB will be sent?
As one of the aims is stated above, providing clarity will be helpful though the different price scenarios clear it to an extent, but the gap between publishing monthly results and transferring can cause difference. Just highlighting that.
Example 1 has a scenario where the proposal was published in the forum and there are just 5 days to read and be in ESF, this can put those delegates who did not participate in the feedback of the proposal at a disadvantage.
To mitigate this a proposal that takes less than 2 weeks on the forum for discussion shall not have ESF & LSF classification. It should have the same wait irrespective of when the delegate participated in the discussion.
I would also share the same concerns as @Bobbay, in such a scenario just adding a comment is going to be redundant and increase the comments that the next delegate will have to read to get the context.
Overall, I favour this proposal and believe it pioneers the effort to make delegates more professional. This is a real opportunity at Arbitrum DAO.
Thank you once again for creating it.