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

Proposals
42

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We voted to keep the current version 1.7.

As we noted in our previous comment, we remain critical of how the DIP is structured and the outcomes it produces. We believe there is still significant work to be done to clarify what the DAO wants to incentivize, how contributors and delegates should be distinguished, and how the program can better align with Arbitrum’s long-term vision.

That said, reverting to v1.5 does not address these issues. Version 1.7, recently approved through a DAO-wide vote, introduces changes that simplify administration, reduce costs, and broaden participation through new tiers. Reverting now would only add more instability without solving the underlying design questions.

Instead of moving backwards, energy should be directed toward accelerating work on a proper contributor and delegate incentive program. One that provides clearer contributor paths, better-defined delegate responsibilities, and more stability and predictability for participants.

For these reasons, we prefer to keep the current v1.7 in place as an interim solution, while focusing on building the next version of the program rather than rolling back to an earlier one.

4 Likes
43

Thank you for the proposal! Nice and useful metrics Paulo!

On a personal note: I came to DAOs after almost 20 years of teaching, seeing them as a way to live my democratic principles and, at least in theory, reward genuine effort.

I understand the frustration of smaller delegates who struggle to reach the threshold, as I went through the same process. At the same time, I see the perspective “We are expecting more than just a “yes/no” vote” as a fair arguement. Of course, I do not agree with excluding small delegates, since this leads in the lack of polyphony. Though, this is a shady part. We, the old small delegates, are not excluded, but the new threshold cuts all the potential new small delegates. I am still thinking on it. This tension is part of shaping a healthier DAO, but we have to be carefull, since there are more important things we have to do. Arbitrum is the biggest DAO. We have to understand it, respect it and try to retain this place!

Personally, I supported v1.7 because I dislike setbacks and I see it as a step forward. But for now, I will ABSTAIN, waiting to see how the system evolves, while still leaning towards my original opinion. This is not because I doubt for my opinion, but since this conflict has arise, I prefer to listen to everyone verry carefully at this moment.

My personal opinion is: a) Delegates should earn their compensation through real contribution (votings & 50 K bring eligibilty, extras bring compensation), and b) Seed should also recognize that incentives are a necessity in today’s economy.
Without delegates, the DAO cannot exist. And without a variety of voices, both small and large, we cannot call it decentralization.

I write the above with absolute respect for the team, I am glad to be a member of it, and I envision only the best for the DAO as well as for each of its members individually!

3 Likes
44

gm, I voted to Keep the Current Version.

I believe @stonecoldpat and @gauntlet have summarized the issue well. The current version isn’t perfect, but it was passed with strong support not long ago. I’ve been critical in the past of how the DIP encouraged spammy behavior (noise on comments vs meaninful progress), but I’m confident Seed and AF are reviewing the data and aiming for the best approach in the upcoming version. I look forward to a V2 program that meaningfully rewards:

  • voting power being actively used

  • contributions that expand the pie rather than extract from it or add unnecessary bureaucracy

Thanks

2 Likes
45

I will be editing this post vote with my decision, as to maintain the shielded voting. Although likely my comments below will probably give away the answer

With the v1.7 passing very recently and the program ending in only 2 more months it seems not much is gained by reverting / shutting down early. I suppose it can be argued the importance of financial prudence or not continuing down a ‘bad road’', but by the time this passes we will only have 1 month of reverted / canceled incentives (October). It just doesn’t make logistical sense, and the 1.7 vote was probably the time to make these arguments (obviously factoring in some of this data wasn’t available)

I think that v2’s iteration is where it is better to make changes. Especially as we will have even more data (AF + SeedGov data and the delegate poll).

That’s not to say I don’t necessarily agree with some of the points made / logic behind the vote. Participation is down and needs to be solved, I’m not really a fan of the multiplier punishing smaller delegates, and there does seem to be a lot of back and forth each month debating comments.

I’ll add too - changing the program again creates a lot flip-flopping in expectations. Which can have motivational effects on the delegates.

1 Like
46

Hi all!

I’ve closed the anonymous feedback survey about the DIP and shared its results here:

To summarize, the Net Promoter Score is -0.005 (from -100 to +100) which is pretty bad overall.

IMG_3768
IMG_37681920×2155 301 KB

You can see the full results and visualizations of those results here:

1 Like
47

Entropy ranked our vote in the following manner:

  1. Keep the Current Version (v1.7)
  2. Sunset the DIP
  3. Abstain
  4. Revert the DIP back to v1.5

When Entropy initially voted in support of v1.5 almost a year ago, we were hopeful that a subjective program would be a step forward from the more basic v1.1. However, the new program unquestionably caused an uptick in spam, redundant AI-generated responses, and less impactful contributions. While both were/are far from perfect, v1.6 and v1.7 helped reduce the incentive for this type of behavior. Reverting back to v1.5 or sunsetting the program entirely would be, in our opinion, more disruptive than productive. To shift the conversation, we encourage the Arbitrum Foundation and SeedGov to publish the 2.0 version of DIP as soon as possible so that delegates can begin giving consideration to what a revamped program entails, its objectives, and if it is cost-effective for the DAO.

Lastly, we would like to extend credit to the SeedGov team for their professionalism in managing the DIP thus far. Delegate compensation is understandably a complex and sensitive topic for those involved in the program. Their team took on a very difficult task, and their proactiveness in making iterations should be viewed as a testament to their dedication to providing the best possible program for the DAO. In all of our engagements together, SeedGov has been a competent actor and thoughtful voice. The DAO is lucky to have their continued involvement.

2 Likes
48

I think it’s important to note the following:
Voting ≠ fair decision

Let’s imagine a hypothetical vote:
All delegates with 4M+ votes receive 1M ARB per month.
There are 24 such delegates with a total of 225.8M votes, which is enough even for the constitutional quorum.
And the majority ends up voting FOR - but is that fair?

This program has the same situation, where top delegates receive rewards and talk about “positive trends,” but in this particular vote all KPI factors that were not met were directly addressed - so where exactly is the “positive direction”? I honestly don’t understand.

Many have mentioned that there was a lot of spam - but the obvious answer here is that the problem should not be solved by allowing a single person, without explanation, to determine the importance or timeliness of someone’s opinion or comment.

Also, hypothetically imagine that the program operator drastically changed their view and decided that all comments from the top 20 delegates are “bad” and scored them at 0 points - almost nobody would receive anything under this program.
That’s efficiency, sure - no money spent, discussions fully held
But is this the kind of program everyone wants to see?
Or should it be a fair one, not dependent on the opinion of a single person?

1 Like