Participating in Arbitrum governance and voting with diligence is time intensive, and the DIP has been a meaningful incentive to encourage active participation. There’s real value in compensating engaged delegates, especially if the aim is to activate more voters and reduce quorum issues. That said, after the recent 40% cut, I worry the incentives may no longer be enough (especially for larger delegates) to justify the hours spent.
I also share the concern others have raised around the subjective criteria. While well-intentioned, it seems to nudge people toward formulaic forum posts that check the boxes, rather than adding genuine signal. This makes it harder to cut through the noise and ultimately hurts discussion quality.
I really appreciate SeedGov’s transparency and willingness to iterate here. I’m not in favor of sunsetting the DIP at this stage, but I’d like to see future versions lean more toward clarity and simplicity (e.g., by focusing primarily on voting activity) if the main goal is to activate larger delegates.