# Rewarding Active Delegates - February 2026 Results **URL:** \ **Category:** Rewarding Active Delegates Program (RAD)\ **Created:** [February 28, 2026, 4:56am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-february-2026-results/30587 "2026-02-28T04:56:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2026, 4:56am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-february-2026-results/30587/1 "2026-02-28T04:56:57Z")
# **February Participants** A total of 37 participants enrolled, 33 **of whom met the base requirements to get Rewards**. You can see the full list [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1buaiSS8mWc1b91jSwKJIpjNHt4gsOySb1whuKtJ6j3s/edit?usp=sharing). # **Votings Breakdown** During the month, there was **1 Snapshot Vote**. - **Off-chain temperature check (non-binding):** As a reminder, the budget for this quarter was set at the time of the [vote](https://snapshot.org/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xa06500740b56c647f25bd3edba80bf05b00140afe99d6b0d27c0f1dc93287901) that approved this program: ## **Incentive Budget per Quarter** | **Proposal type** | **Incentive Budget** | **Payout Cap** | **Minimum voting power** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | On-chain constitutional quorum | 15,000 USD | 700 USD | 200k ARB | | On-chain non-constitutional quorum | 7,000 USD | 500 USD | 200k ARB | | Off-chain decision making (non-constitutional) | 7,000 USD | 500 USD | 200k ARB | | Off-chain election | 7,000 USD | 500 USD | 200k ARB | | Off-chain temperature check (non-binding) | 5,000 USD | 300 USD | 200k ARB | _Table 1: Incentive Budget 1st quarter_ # **February Results** You can see the sheets with the results [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKBtr_-6RsV6zURyXd_Jls4HqtFtTqyTEPhj-J_tSj4/edit?usp=sharing). Of all the participating delegates, 25 were eligible to receive rewards. | **Delegate** | **Proposals Voted** | **Total Rewards ($)** | | --- | --- | --- | | DZack23 | 1 | 300.00 | | Gauntlet | 1 | 300.00 | | Camelot | 1 | 300.00 | | L2BEAT | 1 | 300.00 | | Griff | 1 | 300.00 | | Reverie | 1 | 300.00 | | Olimpio | 1 | 300.00 | | GMX | 1 | 300.00 | | GFXLabs | 1 | 300.00 | | MaxLomu | 1 | 300.00 | | Areta | 1 | 300.00 | | MerlynLabs | 1 | 300.00 | | Cornell Blockchain | 1 | 276.62 | | whizwang | 1 | 240.94 | | Jojo | 1 | 227.94 | | Karpatkey | 1 | 195.06 | | Uniswap Delegation | 1 | 118.45 | | Layer3 | 1 | 115.76 | | TodayInDeFi | 1 | 94.65 | | Michigan | 1 | 36.85 | | Zeptimus | 1 | 21.23 | | cp0x | 1 | 18.38 | | Mikael Bondum | 1 | 18.33 | | Axia Network | 1 | 17.91 | | Sov | 1 | 17.89 | | TOTAL | | 5.000 | _ **Rewards in USD:** **$5,000.00** _ ## **Metrics** ### **Participation** Participation reached **78.38%** across the **37 participating delegates**. Of these 37, five had a monthly participation rate below **75%** , and as a result, **these delegates were not eligible for rewards**. We will reach out to them privately to better understand the reasons behind the missed votes and offer support going forward, with the goal of enabling them to meet the requirements in future periods. ### **Voting Power** Delegates participating in the program contributed the following **average voting power** (for the purposes of this analysis, broken down by voting category): - **Off-chain temperature check (non-binding):** **117,823,771 ARB** ### **Economics** As previously established, a budget equivalent to **USD 5,000 per vote** was allocated for **Off-chain temperature check (non-binding)** proposals.: - For **Off-chain temperature check (non-binding)** votes, **USD 0.000089362** was allocated per vote on average (or, viewed differently, **23,564.75 ARB per dollar allocated** ). - _Note that this ratio does not match the one used for reward calculations in the shared [sheets](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tpbw655aRTLuiW5amzW7UqPGb3ZYplmuM0oT_Zo174A/edit?gid=370757645#gid=370757645). This is expected due to the reward cap. The ratio used in the sheets is purely a mathematical construct intended to redistribute the remaining budget among delegates who do not reach the cap, ensuring that 100% of the originally allocated budget is distributed._ * * * ## **Conclusions** We’ve seen a small reduction in Participation compared to previous months. This is something expectable considering that we had only one non-binding vote that does not have quorum requirements and historically the participation in this type of vote is less than on on-chain votes. While it is true that February brought a smaller number of proposals to analyze, we believe it is important to highlight the significant contribution of **Voting Power to the Snapshot Vote (140,078,832 ARB)** from RAD participants, as **29 registered delegates** cast their votes in this case. It is also true that some of these delegates will not receive rewards, as they did not meet the requirements. As noted in previous results, we will continue working **1:1** with these delegations to help ensure they become eligible in subsequent months. | | | --- | | | ---
**Author:** ![Curia](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/curia/32/7751_2.png) [@Curia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Curia)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2026, 10:02am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-february-2026-results/30587/2 "2026-03-10T10:02:21Z")
Hey there! While reviewing the February RAD results through the our [RAD dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/cdf0c9ec-7895-4195-898c-f703b8c46106/page/p_x0snwq17zd), we noticed one case that may be worth double checking for accuracy. > [@Rewarding Active Delegates (RAD) Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-rad-program/30249/1): > > ## Eligibility requirements > > Any delegate who has satisfied the following eligibility criteria can receive a payment provided that: > > - **Actionable requirements:** > - They cast a vote on a proposal, > - They publicly post rationale for how they voted and why (within 5 days of a proposal ending). From our understanding of the current requirements, rationale submissions are only eligible if they are posted within 5 days after a proposal’s voting period ends. In Gauntlet’s case, it appears the rationale may have been submitted roughly 22 hours after that 5 day window, while still being included in the February rewards. Of course, it is possible we are missing some context or interpreting the rule incorrectly, so we wanted to raise it carefully and ask @SEEDGov to take a look. If our reading is correct, this could slightly affect the final distribution for that cycle and increase rewards for other eligible delegates. We are not raising this to point fingers at anyone. If anything, this is exactly the kind of thing we hoped the dashboard could help with by making RAD data easier for the DAO to review, verify, and discuss openly. Would appreciate it if @SEEDGov could review this case and confirm the correct interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2026, 8:11pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-february-2026-results/30587/3 "2026-03-17T20:11:59Z")
Hi @Curia, Thank you for your review and for flagging this. You are correct that Gauntlet submitted their rationale 22 hours after the deadline. That said, given that several delegates were traveling to ETH Denver that week, and considering that this was the first month in which this rule was enforced (as there were no votes in January), we made the decision to still include them in the distribution. We acknowledge that this was not explicitly mentioned in the post and appreciate you bringing it to our attention. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.