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

[SEEDGov]

Hello Paulo,

@paulofonseca

And honestly, what I would really love to know, is your own answer and not a proxy answer, as to why none of the original KPIs were met by the program you’re running, as I showed here:

The answer to your question about the KPIs has always been available in this forum, even before you raised concerns about them. That said, we agree with Patrick—not only because the KPIs were not fully well designed from the beginning, but also because it is true that KPIs should evolve in an experimental program as new information is gathered. In fact, they were adjusted in version 1.7.

As for the rest:

@paulofonseca

well, I can cancel the current offchain vote and post it again on Thursday, September 11th.

Do you prefer that? I’m asking honestly… just say the word, and I’ll cancel it.

Honestly, it’s not our decision. Moreover, canceling it would, in our view, set yet another poor precedent. It has happened before, and delegates did not receive it well.

@paulofonseca

By the way, edits to proposals in this forum have always been done hours, sometime minutes, before posting the votes on Snapshot. There have also been proposals posted to Snapshot that have had no discussion whatsoever in the forum. This proposal was posted in the forum and generated sufficient discussion, in my view, to be posted to a temperature check.

Could you provide an example of a binding proposal that was completely restructured in the forum and then sent to a vote on the very same day? (again, this is not a mere “temperature check”)

Also, could you explain why neither you nor the proposer consulted us about the feasibility of making the changes retroactive to August?

@paulofonseca

It would also be nice if you guys, the de-facto non-elected enforcers of the Code of Conduct, would not accuse other delegates of bad faith here in this forum. That definitely goes against the Community Guidelines and the Code of Conduct. The fact that you feel it’s ok to say that, speaks volumes as to the way @SEEDGov as been acting lately.

We are not making any accusations; we are simply pointing out that there are two possible explanations for this scenario:

• Either proper due diligence was not conducted, or

• There was bad faith (meaning due diligence was intentionally not conducted).

Each delegate can decide which explanation they prefer to believe—we are merely stating that the entire process is flawed.

Furthermore, we are not the “de-facto non-elected enforcers of the Code of Conduct.” However, we are the legitimate enforcers of the new Terms and Conditions of the DIP. We also remind everyone that delegates must adhere to the current Code of Conduct in addition to the DIP T&Cs, with the latter taking precedence in case of doubt.

Having said that, we believe we have the right to express our opinion as Delegates when we see that someone is not following the procedures agreed upon by the DAO’s delegates. It will then be up to the proper conflict-resolution body to determine whether what happened here was indeed a breach of the DAO’s procedures. We believe there is even a hint about this in this very same thread.