In alignment with the Arbitrum Foundation’s previous stance on vote buying (here), we support SeedGov’s decision to omit vote buying platforms from the DIP.
We believe that the DIP should incentivize good delegate participation, rather than participation for participation’s sake. The program shouldn’t, for example, incentivize behaviour which while participatory, potentially undermines DAO’s economic security via vote buying. Furthermore, we believe it’s important that vote buying platforms become mature enough for the community to better understand their actual impact before being included in such programs.
If vote buying platforms were to be included, we believe that it would only make sense to reward them for voting ‘abstain’ (which, in the case of the largest vote buying platform, is the default when no one buys its vote), as the platform generates revenue if users purchase for/against votes already.
On another note, we see significant room for improvement in how the DIP is structured and what kind of tangible outcomes it brings to the DAO, e.g., a clear delineation between contributor and delegate is needed. Consequently, we believe that the work on a 2.0 version of the DIP should be accelerated.