The amendment to the eligibility criteria significantly encourage new people from other ecosystems to actively participate in Arbitrum DAO, bringing fresh expertise and knowledge
V1.5 version of the comment scoring method, when compared to v1.1 or the old version, stimulates more widespread discussion across the forum regardless whether the proposals are going to reach snapshot, better fostering the environment where delegates are encouraged to participate in all sorts of topics instead of just the most with high popularity
Rewards Performance
Compensation by tiers also greatly increases the delegates motivation to contribute and outperform,with their efforts fairly rewarded
Strongly agree with the proposal and I support DIP 1.5.
Rationale: This issue is more three-dimensional than the last update, more transparent overall, a lot of quantitative becomes qualitative, effective analysis in response to feedback, and an exciting change from quantitative to qualitative in terms of the overall programme’s guiding design. The proposal emphasises the encouragement of professionalisation and sustained participation of delegates in DAO governance through transparent and predictable incentives. Reinforcing the professionalisation and long-term contribution of representatives.
Evaluation methodology: We see that the evaluation methodology of the programme is in line with the overall logic and is feasible to implement
2, the standard specification: see from the relevance, depth of analysis, time, clarity and communication, the impact on decision-making, discussion, etc., I think can be effective three-dimensional assessment.
Overall assessment: Not only did we look at Snapshot’s quantitative system of linking discussions, but we also focused on multiple and in-depth feedback.
The overall quality of the programme is excellent, thanks to the work done by seed.
At the same time, I think there are a few comments under the previous feedback.
1, the professionalism of the feedback is important, but in fact many users need to represent objective and fair and in line with the long-term value, so advocate arb’s high quality values is the first element, objective and fair.
2, in addition to the feedback in the forum, I decided that we also need to consider or increase the representative of the influence of other places and community work, such as the influence of Twitter tweets support, discord community advocacy and feedback, offline activities, etc. should be, for example, a detailed plan. Twitter, in particular, is especially important.
3, in the combination of v1.1 and v1.5, in which the number of voting rights and the number of delegates are not highlighted, this indicator does not take into account the influence of the representative, see the feedback of the salary, I think the minimum of 3000 for a reasonable range, the maximum of 5000 U.S. dollars for the threshold. Not advocating that people work for money. arb’s community values would be seriously distorted if they worked to get higher rewards.
I will vote FOR v 1.5 of this proposal during the temp check.
The first iteration of the DIP served as a starting point to consolidate the base of high-quality delegates who now contribute their views to the discussions. It’s important to keep the level of these discussions to achieve great long-term results.
In version 1.5, I see significant progress towards encouraging valuable participation. I encourage @SEEDGov team to experiment as much as possible and be creative in detecting and assigning participation points. Despite the rubric, many situations will arise that don’t fit into the pre-designed structures, and I trust the team’s judgment and fairness in managing the system. I also hope this version’s approval represents a vote of confidence from all delegates in the criteria they choose, accepting that there is a high degree of subjectivity in this iteration. I don’t see a better way to experiment with something like this.
Finally, I will maintain my comments and reservations regarding the points raised (here and here), although I don’t believe they are blockers for this great step and iteration of the program.
I am very much in favour of the proposal, especially the DIP 1.5 version.
The updated plan is more three-dimensional and transparent than before, and the shift from quantitative assessment to qualitative analysis is particularly impressive, especially the in-depth analysis of feedback. The proposal promotes professionalisation and long-term engagement of delegates through transparent and predictable incentives.
A few suggestions:
1. maintenance of long-term values: in addition to professionalism, delegates should always be objective and impartial, and promote decisions that are in line with the long-term values of the Arbitrum community.
2. Consideration of community influence: It is recommended that the influence of the representative on other platforms (e.g., Twitter, Discord) as well as offline activities be taken into account to fully assess the representative’s contribution.
3. Salary setting and community values: It is recommended that the salary range be set at $3,000-$5,000 to avoid over-incentivising and compromising the purity and values of the community.
These recommendations help to ensure that incentives are more comprehensive and fair, and help to maintain the core values of the community.
I also believe contrary to some comments, that the proposed amount is adequate, as we still need to be competitive compared to other big DAOs and L1s (namely: Optimism, Zksync, Uniswap, Maker, Aave… all of them offer more compensation still than the proposed amount).
I think lowering the amount to $3,000-5,000 as counter-proposed would be detrimental.
Voted FOR - DIP V1.5: Incentive programs showed that with programs like this, you can get very active and engaging governance in your DAO. As a DAO you want the best kind of people making decisions, giving feedback on proposals, attending weekly calls, etc. It takes a lot of time to be active in the governance so incentives like this help bring smart, experienced, and talented people to your DAO. I fully support the DIP 1.5 program run by Seed Latam
We support the Delegate Incentive Program proposal v1.5 and and want to give a big thanks to the Seedlatam team for putting it together. It’s honestly one of the most comprehensive and impactful delegate incentive experiments out there in the DAO space. Huge props to Seedlatam and everyone involved—the proposal is clear and well-structured. Since the program leans on Seedlatam to evaluate delegate comment quality, we’re confident they’ll keep things neutral throughout. Additionally, Curia has received a Questbook grant to build a governance analytics dashboard that also monitors delegate activities. As part of this grant, we’ll be providing monthly reports on delegate activities, participation, and engagement metrics to keep everything transparent and help the community verify the information. Our goal is to enable the community to track how effective the incentive program is, monitor these contributions, and help it succeed in the long run.
I think that in order to chose the better option in general terms we have to keep smth in mind: what’s the goal of the program? Pushing for active participation, professionalization of delegates and providing useful feedback to the different proposal. Having this in mind, I believe that the DIP can really have a positive waterfall effect by improving proposals and the quality of initiatives in the ecosystem. In order to do so, it’s important to push for qualitative feedback, and not only quantitative. This is why I’m voting for DIP v1.5. Many concerns were raised about the way of evaluating this same feedback, which risk to be too subjective or that make delegates’ reward more unpredictable. I agree with these observations but I also think that we can try this new version out and make adjustment if any problem arise.
This new version of the proposal was shaped after many feedback, calls and discussions, and it’s always difficult to come up with something that perfectly aligns with every single aspect. I believe that v1.5 is really close to reaching these different goals. We can give it a try and see how it goes.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR DIP V1.5 for this proposal.
We want to mention that our feedback from this comment was heard and implemented, which we appreciate.
The minor changes from v1.1 to v1.5 are welcomed especially the new rubric-based system. This seems well-suited to address the diverse feedback across the DAO and will likely encourage deeper and more consistent participation from delegates in governance.
We would love to see how the upper cap of 50 delegates could be lifted if the $7,000 per delegate budget is not exhausted, and the 51st delegate qualifies for the last tier allowing more delegates to qualify for incentives.
Lastly, we hope that the subjective scoring will become more objective as the program progresses.
I’ve read, analyzed, and joined the call for the discussion, and I think V1.5 is the best way to move forward. There will, of course, still be some subjectivity in the evaluation, but I believe with each version, the incentive program will become more fair.
We’re voting FOR DIP V1.5. The qualitative assessment tackles spam comments while recognizing valuable off-chain contributions. Tiered compensation creates stronger motivation for high-quality participation. While subjectivity in evaluation is a concern, transparency measures and the 3-month review mitigate this risk. We’d oppose any further inclusion of off-chain metrics like social activities mentioned in some comments - it’s nonsensical, privacy-invasive, and opens the door to even more subjective evaluation. The increased admin budget seems justified given the expanded analysis scope.
We are strongly in favor of the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) v1.5. This proposal represents a significant improvement in how delegate contributions are evaluated and rewarded, aligning incentives more closely with the quality and impact of participation rather than merely the volume of comments.
Key Points for Our Support:
Commitment to High-Quality Contributions: We fully support the shift towards a rubric-based evaluation system emphasizing meaningful, well-considered feedback. This approach will elevate the standard of governance within the Arbitrum DAO, ensuring that rewards go to those who contribute most effectively.
Ongoing Feedback and Participation: We intend to continue providing high-quality feedback and rationale for our votes, fully aligning with the goals of DIP v1.5. The adjustments in scoring weights, particularly the emphasis on early and impactful feedback, align well with our commitment to thoughtful participation.
Strategic Alignment and Budget: The proposed budget for additional administrative support and tools is well-justified. Effective program implementation will require these resources to ensure accurate and fair evaluation of delegate performance.
While we recognize concerns about the subjectivity introduced by the rubric, we believe that the overall benefits—particularly the focus on quality and strategic contributions—make v1.5 the right choice for the DAO’s future and that @SEEDGov is well-placed to be its leader.
I am in favour of implementing a delegate incentive programme:
Regarding the changes proposed, moving PR from all-time to last 90 days seems a good idea to lower the entry barrier. As to 1.1 or 1.5, the latter seems to both require more work from the administrators (in regards to the rubric) but also stimulate high quality feedback and also in a timely manner, by putting more weight to comments made before proposals reach the voting stage. I would have suggested to set CR to 15% instead of lowering it o 10% in v1.5, and DF from 30% to 25%. I like the idea of the rubric and the comp tiers. Good work so far by @SEEDGov.
I voted FOR - DIP 1.5. The SeedGov team has done an admirable job of administering the delegate incentive program. I’m comfortable with the 1.5 approach which gives reviewers the ability to make a more qualitative assessment of delegate contribution based on public forum comments. The reality is that simply commenting on a forum post does not necessarily create value for the DAO. As a proposal creator/owner, I’ve observed significant differences in the quality of delegate contribution to the proposal process and agree compensation should be adjusted accordingly.
First, I think continuing the incentive program will be a benefit to the DAO. We’ve seen over the last 6+ months a solid group of contributors who are actively voting and commenting on proposals that likely otherwise may not have or would have contributed in a far less impactful capacity. So as a broad response I think this is worth continuing
Second, as for 1.1 v 1.5, I’d prefer to go with the 1.5 route as it 1) learns from and fixes some of the difficulties learned in the initial trail period 2) focuses on getting quality feedback and rewards feedback prior to voting and 3) does a good job of factoring in concerns and feedback form delegates.
Finally, I believe the SEEDGov team hads gone a really good job of administering the program so far. As well as has put a lot of thought and consideration on how to improve it. So continuing to use them for the next 12 months is an easy ‘yes’ from me.
Edit: My opinion has not changed since the snapshot vote, will be voting “For” on tally for the reasons noted above
We appreciate all the work so far and effort to improve the program even further with a new system and established structure that apparently works for the objective. While there is an increase in spending from the DAO perspective, we believe the new V1.5 system has been designed well and ready to be experimented with administration support from the SEED team. The program lasts for 12 months but we like the fact that the details of the program can be modified based on the results that we will see.
When I first read the proposal, I had some concerns about how subjective the scoring system seemed. However, after reviewing the comments and feedback from contributors like 404 DAO, I’ve come to appreciate the maturity behind how this program is being executed.
I’ve been involved in the DAO for the past 9 months, participating in the program for about 6 months and receiving incentives for 4 of those.
Engaging in discussions, offering honest and transparent feedback, and connecting with other delegates even with lower voting power isn’t just time consuming. It also demands a lot of commitment and research to provide meaningful input and feedback that can genuinely improve the processes. (I’ll admit I spend a lot of time reading the forum, but sometimes I hold back on commenting as much as I could due to shyness.)
That said, the professionalism and maturity in how SEED has handled this program are clear. The proposals for improvement, gathering feedback, and the detailed rubric leave little room for error. Plus, the willingness to test and make adjustments based on feedback shows how these types of initiatives should be approached. It tackles a key issue: the lack of participation in governance, which isn’t just an Arbitrum problem, but something affecting most DAOs. Even Optimism, for example, currently only sees around 5% active participation in terms of voting power, according to Agora.
This new iteration is definitely more ambitious. It pushes for more professional involvement, with the potential to use available funds to bring on extra contributors. This way, we can continue developing and refining initiatives to reach the future outcomes we want to see in the DAO.