Thank you for the discussion so far, we have found it to be insightful.
While the DIP certainly requires the DAO’s attention (as Patrick summarized), the most recent iterations represent steps in the right direction - making governance more effective, while reducing some of the unproductive noise.
Accordingly, rather than reverting to v1.5, we believe it would be more constructive for the DAO to continue with the current version of the program, while the AF and SeedGov continue working toward a revamped v2.0 that incorporates the feedback received so far. We aim to share a draft of this v2.0 for discussion in the coming weeks.
As Karpatkey mentioned, designing the right delegate (and contributor) incentives is a complex task. The goal should be to strike a balance between improving governance effectiveness, continuing to attract diverse perspectives, and rewarding meaningful contributions.
Separately, we would appreciate it if proposal authors and delegates adhered to the DAO’s procedures requiring a minimum discussion period of at least one week before a proposal is posted to Snapshot. In this case, the aim and content of the proposal changed significantly—from “Sunsetting the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP)” to “Revert the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) to Version 1.5”—just one day before it was posted. Especially considering that the results would be binding, making it more impactful than a standard temperature check, we believe the community should have been given more time to discuss these changes, before the proposal was raised to Snapshot.