Just want to clarify that, as I understand it currently at least, in the Arbitrum Foundation DIP 2.0 proposal, the Peer Assembly is just a method to define the membership in the program, and not a way for peers to evaluate other peers contributions to the DAO. Additionally, anybody can submit their (or others) contributions privately to the Program Manager for them to centrally review and evaluate. So in this proposal, the evaluation of contributions is still centralized and therefore biased and subjective to the Program Manager’s opinion, just like in DIP 1.5/6/7. Furthermore, there will be no recourse or transparency into those decisions since the Program Manager will not be required to explain why those 5 contributions were the chosen ones to be compensated in that month.
However, in the Arbitrum Triple Dip (Delegate Incentive Program) proposal I’ve put forward and recently updated, only the Third Dip method requires delegates enrolled in the program to review and evaluate (through a contributor evaluation vote like this one) the other peers contributions, every 3 months. From the result of that quarterly vote, the Third Dip payouts will be computed and distributed. The payment for the First and Second Dip will be automatic and algorithmically computed following the rules and parameters proposed and eventually approved.