# 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:** 70
**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:** [September 17, 2024, 10:11pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-delegate-incentive-program-dip/26496/70 "2024-09-17T22:11:28Z")
> [@paulofonseca](#): > > It looks to me that requiring only 60% of vote participation for onchain votes is not high enough. For example, in the past 90 days there were only 10 onchain proposals in Arbitrum DAO. So asking these delegates to vote 10 times in 3 months is totally reasonable and allowing them to miss 40% of the votes is too benevolent in my opinion. I think the 60% of vote participation criteria should be much higher, maybe even 100%. And also, if delegates are worried about missing a vote, they can just subscribe to nice proposal reminders in [proposals.app](https://proposals.app) and they will get a wonderful email whenever they need to vote on an Arbitrum proposal, for both onchain, and offchain votes. And it’s free ninety nine! =) Looking at the data we collected during the first 3 months of the program (March, April, and May), the delegates registered in the program contributed 65.64% of the VP of voting in Tally during the 3 months. > [@\[DIP v1.0\]From Engagement to Rewards: A Comprehensive Analysis of Participation and Incentives](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-0-from-engagement-to-rewards-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-participation-and-incentives/25671/1): > > With the cumulative VP and the participation rate, we can calculate the actual VP contributed by the delegates and the percentage they represent of the average VP each month. > > ![3](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/9/9ffbd7a5a451e080f17f91379ed678d006d6f297.jpeg) You can also see in the following table the high level of delegate participation in the first 3 months. We hope that the metrics will still be promising given that in order to be eligible for compensation it will be necessary to obtain 65% or more of TP. Considering that the voting parameters cover 60% of the score (between PR, Snapshot, and Tally) it isn’t easy to receive compensation if you are not a consistent voter. > [@\[DIP v1.0\]From Engagement to Rewards: A Comprehensive Analysis of Participation and Incentives](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/dip-v1-0-from-engagement-to-rewards-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-participation-and-incentives/25671/1): > > We calculated the participation rate of registered delegates each month in Snapshot and Tally votes using the following formula: > > - %Snapshot: (SV(Rn) / SV(Tn)) > > - %Tally: (TV(Rn) / TV(Tn)) > > ![2](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/f/ff1ef0b4b1b6325e0bca1730d1103ceb7be87534.jpeg) > [@paulofonseca](#): > > in the 1.5 option, for a delegate that has their monthly compensation slashed because their comments on the forum were graded on the rubric as lower quality then expected, that delegate will for sure demand knowing which were the specific comments and in which rubric they were scored lower. So the dashboard would need to be able to show that information, for every single comment, so that delegates get a fair grading and understand why their monthly compensation diminished from what their expectation was. Also, I think this will inevitably create a risky dynamic where the program managers would be policing the actual discourse on this discourse forum, by grading higher certain types of comments and grading lower another types of comments, since their own biases will always be at play. I personally wouldn’t like to be this type of police nor to be policed like this, in this forum. As we discussed on the Monday call, initially the rubric and report will be publicly available on the Karma dashboard, although the analysis will be provided in a general way. We expect to be able to go into more detail in the short/medium term with the help of the tools that Karma will provide. It should be noted that this version (if approved) will be treated on an experimental basis initially. > [@paulofonseca](#): > > I’m not sure how this program will interface with the ARB staking program but it wouldn’t shock me if this program would morph into being the DIP for the delegates that have between 50k and 500k ARB, and bigger delegates would get their compensation only from the staking mechanism. This upper 500k ARB limit is just a number chosen at random, but if we’re gonna have staking rewards for those with the most ARB, maybe the DIP would become the program that compensates the smaller delegates that wouldn’t be able to professionalize otherwise. Since honestly, the bigger delegates are already kinda professionalized. We are interested in aligning both proposals, but the staking is at a preliminary stage and we believe it is a discussion that can happen later. However, there is a [working group](https://t.me/c/1920066768/13126) already created by @Frisson that you can join if you want to deepen the discussion. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-delegate-incentive-program-dip/26496)._