Proposal: Revert the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) to Version 1.5

Proposals
34

Hello everyone,

First of all, we would like to clarify that our voting order will be as follows:

  1. Abstain

  2. Keep the current version

  3. Revert the DIP to v1.5

  4. Sunset the DIP

Naturally, our first option is to abstain due to the evident conflicts of interest; we believe this is the most ethical stance.

That said, unfortunately, given the chosen voting methodology, we are compelled to rank the remaining options in descending order of preference.

We believe that, as the Arbitrum Foundation has expressed, the changes introduced so far were steps in the right direction. We also confirm that we are working with them on a new iteration in which the program will be split into two tracks (Delegates and Contributors). This is something we previously identified as necessary in our mid-term report, and Patrick has also explained it very well.

Separately, we would like to share our perspective on how this proposal process unfolded:

  1. A proposal to sunset the DIP was posted on the forum from an anonymous account created three days prior, and less than a month after the approval of version 1.7, which had received strong support from delegates.

  2. Juanrah invited the proposer to the Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call on August 26, 2025. The proposer never showed up.

  3. On September 4, the proposer edited the proposal, suggesting to revert the DIP to version 1.5 retroactively, including August. It should be noted that we were never consulted on the feasibility of this clause, as explicitly suggested in the Writing Your First Proposal to the ArbitrumDAO thread on several occasions:

    In this case, we had already begun working on the August DIP results, and reverting to 1.5 would not only mean starting over, but it would also be unfeasible under Karma’s dashboard framework. Reverting the changes and adapting the dashboard back to the December 2024 version would take several additional weeks of work for Karma.

    It’s also important to mention that one of the arguments raised against SEEDGov as PM was the “retroactive” changes introduced on February 12, 2025, for the February assessment. We find it contradictory that the OP now proposes to change the August rules on September 4 retroactively.

  4. On that same September 4, Paulo Fonseca decided to escalate this new proposal to a vote, completely disregarding the 7-day feedback period required under the DAO’s procedures after the adoption of the new Code of Conduct. This is especially problematic since it’s a binding proposal requiring a non-constitutional quorum, not just a “Temperature Check.” Once again, we find this contradictory, as Paulo has been outspoken about the need to allow sufficient time for discussion before voting (recent examples: 1, 2).

  5. Today, September 9, the proposer once again had the opportunity to present his case regarding the proposal that Paulo brought to a vote during the Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call, but once again chose not to show up.

From our perspective, the entire process has been compromised either by a lack of due diligence or by bad faith (everyone will have their own view), and this vote in itself sets a very poor precedent. It makes us think that perhaps we should consider raising the thresholds required to post proposals to Snapshot.

We invite all delegates to take these details into account when casting their votes, as sunsetting the program would leave the DAO without any pipeline to keep delegates and contributors engaged, while reverting to v1.5 would entail a colossal effort for both Karma and SEEDGov in terms of development and operations (setting aside other economic and social implications that have already been mentioned by some delegates and by the Foundation itself).

4 Likes