I believe that discussing the DIP is essential, especially given the upcoming v2.0 expected in the next few months. As an interim decision, I support shifting back to version 1.5, which was the last iteration where subjective evaluation played a smaller role.
Version 1.5 focused on the professionalization of delegates, encouraging them to dedicate significant time to governance activities while ensuring that “Delegates should focus on their role and DAO activities, not on understanding complex economic mechanisms to receive compensation.” Additionally, it emphasized the need for “transparent and predictable incentives” so delegates could be confident in their compensation as they improved their contributions ( Proposal - Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) )
Starting with version 1.6, the DIP shifted away from these principles, introducing more complex, unpredictable, and subjective criteria. This shift required delegates to adapt to the new rules rather than the program adapting to delegate practices, which discouraged participation, and effectively inverted the original intent.
I don’t believe the problem is with the program concept itself, but with the direction change from v1.5 to v1.6. Therefore, I support reverting to v1.5 as a temporary measure to restore balance and engagement while awaiting a more thorough, data-informed discussion surrounding v2.0. I also think that it’s critical that this proposal and its lessons are fully considered as signals to guide the formulation of v2.0.