# Rewarding Active Delegates - March 2025 Results **URL:** \ **Category:** Rewarding Active Delegates Program (RAD)\ **Created:** [April 6, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-march-2025-results/30734 "2026-04-06T20:19:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **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:** [April 6, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-march-2025-results/30734/1 "2026-04-06T20:19:14Z")
# **March Participants** A total of 36 participants enrolled. You can see the full list [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1buaiSS8mWc1b91jSwKJIpjNHt4gsOySb1whuKtJ6j3s/edit?usp=sharing). # **Votings Breakdown** During the month, there were a total of 1 **Snapshot Vote, 1 Tally Vote, and the Security Council Nominee Selection Phase:** - **Off-chain decision making (non-constitutional):** - **On-chain constitutional quorum:** - **[Security Council Nominee Selection Phase](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council/election/5/round-1)** 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: > [@Rewarding Active Delegates (RAD) Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-rad-program/30249/1): > > ## 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 | Additionally, for the Security Council Elections: Nominee Phase, the budget and eligibility rules have been outlined in the following thread: **[RAD Special Budget for the Security Council Elections](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rad-special-budget-for-the-security-council-elections/30658)** # **March Results** You can see the sheets with the results [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jMkF8jVvDuHSzy0VNIpaIKrxEQjBWInS6amBXerQnSI/edit?usp=sharing). Of all the participating delegates, 13 were eligible to receive rewards. | Delegate | Proposals Voted | Total Rewards ($) | | --- | --- | --- | | Areta | 3 | $1,900.00 | | DZack23 | 3 | $1,900.00 | | Griff | 3 | $1,900.00 | | Jojo | 3 | $1,900.00 | | L2BEAT | 3 | $1,900.00 | | Uniswap Delegation | 3 | $1,900.00 | | Zeptimus | 3 | $1,900.00 | | cp0x | 3 | $1,900.00 | | MaxLomu | 3 | $1,200.00 | | GMX | 3 | $1,200.00 | | Camelot | 3 | $700.00 | | Arana Digital | 3 | $700.00 | | Layer3 | 3 | $500.00 | | TOTAL | | $19,500 | _ **Rewards in USD:** **$19,500.00** _ _Note: Arana published [their rationale](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arana-digital-delegate-communication-thread/22362/39) for the Security Council Elections: Nominee Phase three hours after the deadline, but we decided to include it as valid._ ## **Metrics** ### **Participation** Participation reached **72.22%** across the **36 participating delegates**. Of these 36, 20 had a monthly participation rate below **75%** , and as a result, **these delegates were not eligible for rewards**. ### Rationales Requirement In accordance with this requirement, we hereby report the following on behalf of the delegates registered in this program: - On average, 61.31% of the participants who voted submitted a rationale - The remaining 38.69% were excluded from rewards despite having voted on the proposal, as required by the guidelines. ### **Voting Power** Delegates participating in the program contributed the following **average voting power** (for this analysis, broken down by voting category): - **Off-chain decision making (non-constitutional):** **134,397,362 ARB** - **On-chain constitutional quorum: 174,700,934 ARB** - **Security Council Nominee Selection Phase: 81,537,573 ARB** ### Incentivized Voting Power After analyzing the delegates’ voting participation rates, their compliance with the requirement to provide rationales, and the voting power they have contributed to the proposals, we can calculate the incentivized voting power: - **Off-chain decision making (non-constitutional):** **54,677,833 ARB - 40.68%** - **On-chain constitutional quorum: 57,558,751 ARB - 32.95%** - **Security Council Nominee Selection Phase: 43,196,663 ARB - 52.98%** ### **Economics** As previously established, a budget equivalent to **USD 7,000** was allocated for **off-chain decision-making (non-constitutional) and USD 15,000** for **On-chain constitutional quorum** and **Security Council Nominee Selection Phase** votes: - For **Off-chain decision making (non-constitutional)** votes, **USD 0.0001005892095** was allocated per vote on average (or, viewed differently, **9,941.42 ARB per dollar allocated** ). - For **On-chain constitutional quorum** votes, **USD 0.00012161** was allocated per vote on average (or, viewed differently, **8,222.68 ARB per dollar allocated** ). - **For Security Council Nominee Selection Phase** votes, **USD 0.00016205** was allocated per vote on average (or, viewed differently, **6,170.95 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** March 2026 showed strong engagement across the three incentivized proposals, with material voting power deployed in each category. At the same time, the month underscored how strict participation and rationale rules shape outcomes: while overall program participation was healthy, a meaningful share of enrolled delegates did not meet the 75% monthly participation threshold, and a significant portion of those who voted did not qualify for rewards because they did not publish the required rationales on time. The incentive design translated into **$19,500** distributed across **13** eligible delegates, reflecting both compliance and the redistribution mechanics described in the workbook. Going forward, the program will continue to use these monthly reports to monitor participation and rationale compliance, follow up with delegates who fell short of eligibility, and refine support so more participants can meet the requirements in subsequent periods. In parallel, we expect to work **in coordination with OpCo** to review whether any **adjustments** to how eligibility is applied are warranted, so that the framework remains aligned with the program’s **primary aim (rewarding active voting)** while preserving clarity around supporting expectations (such as rationales and participation thresholds). The intention is to reduce instances where delegates who vote in good faith **miss rewards for secondary or procedural reasons** , without lowering the bar for transparency or accountability.