I align with these proposed changes.
In particular, removing the $100 payout threshold, removing the 75% participation threshold, and treating the 5-day rationale requirement as a modest reward reduction rather than a hard eligibility cutoff all seem like sensible adjustments based on what the program has learned in practice.
What stands out to me is that these changes reduce administrative overhead, make the program easier for delegates to participate in, and cut down on rules that appear precise but do not seem to add much signal in practice. That feels more consistent with the stated goals of RAD in the original Snapshot vote: increasing active voting power, reducing voter apathy, and generating useful public sentiment through forum feedback.
This is also consistent with what I found in my Arbitrum DAO Contributor Program Research, completed as part of a Firestarter grant. Programs like RAD, and a possible DAO Contributor Program, tend to work better when they are designed around clear incentives and low-friction participation, rather than brittle eligibility criteria that create avoidable process burden for both the program manager and participants. If a requirement is mostly functioning as bureaucracy rather than meaningfully improving the program’s goals, it is usually better to simplify it or convert it into a lighter incentive.
Overall, these changes seem like a reasonable move toward a program design that is easier to administer, easier for delegates to engage with, and more aligned with the actual outcomes the DAO wants.