We believe that by automating certain tasks and in the future the possibility of decentralizing the administration of the program could allow the program to scale up in the event of a significant increase in DAO activity.
This is what we want to solve as the program evolves and as you said, that is why we are proposing version 1.5. If this rubric works as expected we can use the same criteria to evaluate voting rationale.
We would like to make two clarifications in this regard. First, although the maximum budget is $4.2M/year, our metrics from the end-of-program report we are currently working on show that, on average, during these six months, the delegates who were part of the program and received compensation earned an average Total Participation of 79.65. Considering the proposed cap of $7,000, this equates to an average monthly compensation per delegate of $5,575.50.
On the other hand, in our mid-term report there are some metrics on voting participation of delegates who have been part of DPI 1.0.
As can be seen in the information above, during the first 3 months of the program, delegates participating in the program contributed an average of 65.64% of the votes in Tally. This indicates that while there is no criterion that directly incentivizes delegates with higher VP, the program has been able to incentivize large amounts of VP. However, we would be interested to hear feedback on how we can incorporate this metric into the framework in the future as we have proposed something similar in the past and there was not much consensus in the DAO on this.
Thanks for your feedback, the reality is that the activation of version 1.5 during the development of the program can be inconvenient at the administrative level and also in terms of the need to adapt the Karma dashboard. We believe that, as you rightly say, version 1.5 is the natural evolution of the program and that if necessary, we can always go back to version 1.1 (which would be easier than implementing v1.5 with the program running).
Although we understand that the governance calendar is open, in this first experimentation we only seek to encourage those calls that are hosted by the Arbitrum Foundation or those that are not related to any incentivized working group, so one idea would be to add an extra slot to the “Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call” and “Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call” as a “repetition” to give delegates from other timezones the possibility to participate. Do you think it can be coordinated? @entropy@raam@tane@KlausBrave@Englandzz_Curia
We have contemplated this situation you mentioned, in both v1.1 and v1.5 we intend to take a more proactive approach to AI generated comments:
