We would like to introduce a temporary extension of the current Delegate Incentive System for up to two months.
SEEDGov is working on the v1.1 of the Delegate Incentive System. This new version will try to implement significant changes that we believe are going to improve the actual version of the system.
Considering that the actual program concludes on August 31, that the following iteration will probably need more than one week of discussion, and that we adapt to the recent approved DAO Calendar, we are presenting a temporary extension of the program with the objective of not interrupting delegates incentives while v1.1 is being discussed.
Approved Delegate Incentive System has proved to be cost-efficient. To date, 1,1 million ARBs are still in the DIS multisig out of a total of 1.58M initially transferred.
Note: Special thanks to our frens @r3gen_Finance for an early delivery of their Arbitrum Token Flow Report. The Full Flow Report will be published soon.
Note II: Data as of July 31, 2024.
With the objective of maintaining the delegates engaged and incentivized while v1.1 of the system is discussed, we propose to extend the current one for a period up to two months.
This proposal will be attached to the new Delegate Incentive System. If the new version of the system is approved before the temporary extension ends, this version will be deprecated to make way for v1.1 of the System.
As an important clarification, cost structures won’t be changed during this temporary extension. Funds will come from the Delegate Incentive System Multisig.
Note: We know that costs are out of date. In order to smooth the process we’ll keep the same operational costs until the release of Delegate Incentive System v1.1
Acording to the recently approved DAO Calendar, vote will go live on Snapshot on Thursday, August 15.
We would like to introduce a temporary extension of the current Delegate Incentive System for up to two months.
SEEDGov is working on the v1.1 of the Delegate Incentive System. This new version will try to implement significant changes that we believe are going to improve the actual version of the system.
Considering that the actual program concludes on August 31, that the following iteration will probably need more than one week of discussion, and that we adapt to the recent approved DAO Calendar, we are presenting a temporary extension of the program with the objective of not interrupting delegates incentives while v1.1 is being discussed.
Approved Delegate Incentive System has proved to be cost-efficient. To date, 1,1 million ARBs are still in the DIS multisig out of a total of 1.58M initially transferred.
Note: Special thanks to our frens @r3gen_Finance for an early delivery of their Arbitrum Token Flow Report. The Full Flow Report will be published soon.
Note II: Data as of July 31, 2024.
With the objective of maintaining the delegates engaged and incentivized while v1.1 of the system is discussed, we propose to extend the current one for a period up to two months.
This proposal will be attached to the new Delegate Incentive System. If the new version of the system is approved before the temporary extension ends, this version will be deprecated to make way for v1.1 of the System.
As an important clarification, cost structures won’t be changed during this temporary extension. Funds will come from the Delegate Incentive System Multisig.
Note: We know that costs are out of date. In order to smooth the process we’ll keep the same operational costs until the release of Delegate Incentive System v1.1
Acording to the recently approved DAO Calendar, vote will go live on Snapshot on Thursday, August 15.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/33?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/2?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/32
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/31?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/46?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/21?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/29?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/argonaut-delegate-communication-thread/24722/26?u=argonaut
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/28
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/19?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/18?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/15?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/13?u=0x_ultra
support,It aligns with the long-term interests of the Arbitrum ecosystem and ensures the proper allocation and management of resources,
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/12?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/11?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/10?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/9?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/33?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/2?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/32
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/31?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/46?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/21?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/29?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/argonaut-delegate-communication-thread/24722/26?u=argonaut
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/28
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/19?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/18?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/15?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/13?u=0x_ultra
support,It aligns with the long-term interests of the Arbitrum ecosystem and ensures the proper allocation and management of resources,
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/12?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/11?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/10?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-to-temporary-extend-delegate-incentive-system/26179/9?u=ermia
I appreciate the effort to maintain delegate engagement through the temporary extension of the incentive system. However, I have reservations about this proposal due to the lack of robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness so far. While it's acknowledged that the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) has encouraged participation, there are concerns that it may disproportionately reward those who are more active but not necessarily aligned with the long-term goals of the DAO.
Additionally, the extension could inadvertently consolidate power among a small group of delegates, potentially leading to an imbalance in decision-making power. This is particularly concerning if the incentives continue to favor participation metrics without adequately assessing the quality and alignment of contributions to the DAO's broader objectives. Without clear, data-driven results from the current program, extending it might reinforce existing issues rather than address them.
I appreciate the effort to maintain delegate engagement through the temporary extension of the incentive system. However, I have reservations about this proposal due to the lack of robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness so far. While it's acknowledged that the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) has encouraged participation, there are concerns that it may disproportionately reward those who are more active but not necessarily aligned with the long-term goals of the DAO.
Additionally, the extension could inadvertently consolidate power among a small group of delegates, potentially leading to an imbalance in decision-making power. This is particularly concerning if the incentives continue to favor participation metrics without adequately assessing the quality and alignment of contributions to the DAO's broader objectives. Without clear, data-driven results from the current program, extending it might reinforce existing issues rather than address them.
A more prudent approach would involve thoroughly analyzing the outcomes of the initial incentive program, identifying areas for improvement, and ensuring that any extension or new iteration of the program aligns incentives with meaningful, value-driven contributions to the DAO. This would help avoid the risk of centralizing influence and ensure that rewards are distributed in a manner that truly benefits the DAO's governance and long-term health
I appreciate the effort to maintain delegate engagement through the temporary extension of the incentive system. However, I have reservations about this proposal due to the lack of robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness so far. While it's acknowledged that the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) has encouraged participation, there are concerns that it may disproportionately reward those who are more active but not necessarily aligned with the long-term goals of the DAO.
Additionally, the extension could inadvertently consolidate power among a small group of delegates, potentially leading to an imbalance in decision-making power. This is particularly concerning if the incentives continue to favor participation metrics without adequately assessing the quality and alignment of contributions to the DAO's broader objectives. Without clear, data-driven results from the current program, extending it might reinforce existing issues rather than address them.
I appreciate the effort to maintain delegate engagement through the temporary extension of the incentive system. However, I have reservations about this proposal due to the lack of robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness so far. While it's acknowledged that the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) has encouraged participation, there are concerns that it may disproportionately reward those who are more active but not necessarily aligned with the long-term goals of the DAO.
Additionally, the extension could inadvertently consolidate power among a small group of delegates, potentially leading to an imbalance in decision-making power. This is particularly concerning if the incentives continue to favor participation metrics without adequately assessing the quality and alignment of contributions to the DAO's broader objectives. Without clear, data-driven results from the current program, extending it might reinforce existing issues rather than address them.
A more prudent approach would involve thoroughly analyzing the outcomes of the initial incentive program, identifying areas for improvement, and ensuring that any extension or new iteration of the program aligns incentives with meaningful, value-driven contributions to the DAO. This would help avoid the risk of centralizing influence and ensure that rewards are distributed in a manner that truly benefits the DAO's governance and long-term health
The results are in for the Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/832
The results are in for the Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/832
With the Snapshot Vote already approved and since the funds remain in the multi-sig, no on-chain actions are required. Therefore, the extension doesn't need to go through a Tally vote.
The Arbitrum MSS onchain proposal has been executed and the Arbitrum MSS has been funded.
With the Snapshot Vote already approved and since the funds remain in the multi-sig, no on-chain actions are required. Therefore, the extension doesn't need to go through a Tally vote.
The Arbitrum MSS onchain proposal has been executed and the Arbitrum MSS has been funded.
We anticipate that the MSS will start to be used in September, when the delegate incentives multisig is migrated to use the MSS: Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System. - #21 by axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth
After August compensations are disbursed, the Delegate Incentive Program will adhere to Multi-sig Support Service (MSS). SEEDGov aligns with the community’s perspective that the MSS unit will significantly boost efficiency, savings, and transparency in DAO operations. These enhancements are essential as the Delegate Incentive Program has to fund various delegates each month.
Payment requestors for the DIP will be @Gianluca and @Manugotsuka, both members of the SEEDGov Team.
We invite you all to keep contributing to RFC - Delegate Incentive Program v1.1
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal since extending this program by two months would be nice to maintain the momentum that’s been built with the increased level of incentivized delegate involvement. For this program, and for other programs, it’s important to consider buffer periods. An initial proposal that’s meant to last 6-months could actually span for 7 months for the sake of a smooth transition to the next iteration of that program. During that 7th month, v2 of a program can be voted on.
Voted FOR.
The incentive program seems to have driven some engagement - but I really want to emphasize that we should press on delegate accountability and incentives way deeper than this program.
I voted “FOR” this proposal.
I believe the team working on V1.1 of the Delegate Incentive Program needs enough time to cover important factors, including ARB price fluctuations and low incentives for delegates, considering the complex nature of the forum at the moment.
Firstly, thank you for this proposal idea. Like many others have mentioned, we also believe that the delegate incentive program has been highly productive and beneficial so far. It has helped to somewhat reverse the declining trend in interest towards governance. Additionally, the distribution of incentives to delegates has been handled with great care and attention. Extending this program by two months seems like a very reasonable duration.
As further feedback, while the program aims to activate all delegates, we believe it has not shown the desired impact on very small delegates. We do not have a solution for this yet, but we encourage active delegates to reflect on this matter, as efforts to attract new participants to the DAO and find ways to empower small delegates are crucial factors that will contribute the most to decentralization.
The Incentive Program funds were migrated to the MSS.
DAOplomats voted FOR the temporary extension of the delegates incentive program.
The delegates incentive program has had considerable impact in the overall governance participation within the DAO so we were supportive of extending the program pending v1.1 being worked on.
We also echo L2BEAT's feedback on flexibility and would love the SeedLatem team to consider it as they put the v1.1 together.
With the Snapshot Vote already approved and since the funds remain in the multi-sig, no on-chain actions are required. Therefore, the extension doesn't need to go through a Tally vote.
The Arbitrum MSS onchain proposal has been executed and the Arbitrum MSS has been funded.
With the Snapshot Vote already approved and since the funds remain in the multi-sig, no on-chain actions are required. Therefore, the extension doesn't need to go through a Tally vote.
The Arbitrum MSS onchain proposal has been executed and the Arbitrum MSS has been funded.
We anticipate that the MSS will start to be used in September, when the delegate incentives multisig is migrated to use the MSS: Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System. - #21 by axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth
After August compensations are disbursed, the Delegate Incentive Program will adhere to Multi-sig Support Service (MSS). SEEDGov aligns with the community’s perspective that the MSS unit will significantly boost efficiency, savings, and transparency in DAO operations. These enhancements are essential as the Delegate Incentive Program has to fund various delegates each month.
Payment requestors for the DIP will be @Gianluca and @Manugotsuka, both members of the SEEDGov Team.
We invite you all to keep contributing to RFC - Delegate Incentive Program v1.1
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal since extending this program by two months would be nice to maintain the momentum that’s been built with the increased level of incentivized delegate involvement. For this program, and for other programs, it’s important to consider buffer periods. An initial proposal that’s meant to last 6-months could actually span for 7 months for the sake of a smooth transition to the next iteration of that program. During that 7th month, v2 of a program can be voted on.
Voted FOR.
The incentive program seems to have driven some engagement - but I really want to emphasize that we should press on delegate accountability and incentives way deeper than this program.
I voted “FOR” this proposal.
I believe the team working on V1.1 of the Delegate Incentive Program needs enough time to cover important factors, including ARB price fluctuations and low incentives for delegates, considering the complex nature of the forum at the moment.
Firstly, thank you for this proposal idea. Like many others have mentioned, we also believe that the delegate incentive program has been highly productive and beneficial so far. It has helped to somewhat reverse the declining trend in interest towards governance. Additionally, the distribution of incentives to delegates has been handled with great care and attention. Extending this program by two months seems like a very reasonable duration.
As further feedback, while the program aims to activate all delegates, we believe it has not shown the desired impact on very small delegates. We do not have a solution for this yet, but we encourage active delegates to reflect on this matter, as efforts to attract new participants to the DAO and find ways to empower small delegates are crucial factors that will contribute the most to decentralization.
The Incentive Program funds were migrated to the MSS.
DAOplomats voted FOR the temporary extension of the delegates incentive program.
The delegates incentive program has had considerable impact in the overall governance participation within the DAO so we were supportive of extending the program pending v1.1 being worked on.
We also echo L2BEAT's feedback on flexibility and would love the SeedLatem team to consider it as they put the v1.1 together.
The Incentive Program funds were migrated to the MSS.
Delegate Incentives Program - Funds will be migrated from the program’s multisig to the MSS multisig to pay the 2 month extension as requested by the program managers as stated here .
Tx: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x1d9cea4b5d2bd11e3dc0428cc7f241c188ccd2560f3ae886adf5e877035f3ac7
My only note would be I don’t want to see the next iteration be put on the backburner now that an extension has been made. I don’t believe this will happen, but in the interest of ‘keeping the feet to the fire’ on this moving forward I would not vote to extend this again if we are voting on another small extension again in a few months.
My only note would be I don’t want to see the next iteration be put on the backburner now that an extension has been made. I don’t believe this will happen, but in the interest of ‘keeping the feet to the fire’ on this moving forward I would not vote to extend this again if we are voting on another small extension again in a few months.
We are currently working on v1.1 of the program, which will include significant changes that will improve the current program. This draft will be published as soon as possible to maximize discussion timing so delegates can contribute their ideas.
We want this extension to keep delegates incentivized while discussing the next version of the program. As stated in our Middle-Term Report, DIP has shown some good results, and while we think there's still room for improvement, we believe v1.1 will address them nicely.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the extension of the delegate incentives.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the extension of the delegate incentives.
As outlined in the report SEED prepared, the delegate incentives program (DIP) did yield some positive results when it came to governance participation and engagement. We believe that continuing the program and refining it to have an even more significant positive impact is the right approach. We’re in favor of the extension proposal simply because it doesn’t make sense to stop the incentives before the v1.1 that SEED is already working on is introduced. The 2-month extension will give ample time for the second iteration of DIP to be finalized and implemented.
On the occasion of our rationale communication, we also wanted to provide feedback on DIP that could inform the creation of the second version.
Overall, we’re supportive of continuing the delegate incentives program given we keep experimenting and refining how we reward delegates for their active and responsible participation in governance.
Hey! Thanks for this valuable feedback. As we’ve mentioned before, we’re collecting feedback in order to make the proposal as collectively worked as possible.
Hey! Thanks for this valuable feedback. As we’ve mentioned before, we’re collecting feedback in order to make the proposal as collectively worked as possible.
The program manager (SEED in this case) should have the flexibility to alter the eligibility criteria and rewards calculation method monthly if needed. That way, we will allow adjustments to the ever-changing landscape within the DAO and be able to incentivize the ‘right’ actions and behaviors. The only prerequisite for the alteration should be a communication of the change in advance and a reason to support the change.
The second version of DIP should last a full year instead of 6 months. That will give the program manager more time to refine the program and make it more predictable for delegates to rely on.
We agree on this point. During the first iteration of the program, we took on an observer role to understand the dynamics and actions delegates took to receive compensation. As you mentioned, six months is not enough time to introduce changes without being sure they will have a positive impact on the DAO. In version 1.1, we will take a more active role and, in consensus with the DAO, propose changes to improve the program.
This is something worth considering. Although we’re already introducing rewards calculation in the v1.1, having the possibility to dynamically change it will be an upgrade considering the next version aims for a one year extension instead of a six month one.
While we calculate the rewards for each delegate based on the participation rate on Snapshot and Tally and the posting on the forums, we want DIP v1.1 to make it clear that the responsibilities delegates who receive incentives have don’t stop there. Participating in governance is more nuanced and we should seek to give some flexibility to the program manager to assess overall participation.
That’s something we’ve been discussing a lot. While Forum Activity is something that needs constantly enhancing, a great delegate work also means being in the calls, participating in working groups and constantly checking the multiple chats delegates engage.
For this second version of the program, we’ll work to increase the activities that receive compensation. We also want delegates with high participation to be rewarded appropriately.
While we’d had preferred concrete metrics on delegate performance before voting, it buys some time to refine incentive structures.
We’ve already published our Middle-Term Report and will publish a Final Report once the first iteration of the program is completed.
Alex Lumley, Savvy Delegate - Commenting Rationale
See voting rationale here here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/7?u=alexlumley
Rationale:
These adjustments aim to maintain delegate engagement during the system transition, addressing economic fluctuations and operational needs.
Feedback for Improvement:
The Incentive Program funds were migrated to the MSS.
Delegate Incentives Program - Funds will be migrated from the program’s multisig to the MSS multisig to pay the 2 month extension as requested by the program managers as stated here .
Tx: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x1d9cea4b5d2bd11e3dc0428cc7f241c188ccd2560f3ae886adf5e877035f3ac7
My only note would be I don’t want to see the next iteration be put on the backburner now that an extension has been made. I don’t believe this will happen, but in the interest of ‘keeping the feet to the fire’ on this moving forward I would not vote to extend this again if we are voting on another small extension again in a few months.
My only note would be I don’t want to see the next iteration be put on the backburner now that an extension has been made. I don’t believe this will happen, but in the interest of ‘keeping the feet to the fire’ on this moving forward I would not vote to extend this again if we are voting on another small extension again in a few months.
We are currently working on v1.1 of the program, which will include significant changes that will improve the current program. This draft will be published as soon as possible to maximize discussion timing so delegates can contribute their ideas.
We want this extension to keep delegates incentivized while discussing the next version of the program. As stated in our Middle-Term Report, DIP has shown some good results, and while we think there's still room for improvement, we believe v1.1 will address them nicely.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the extension of the delegate incentives.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the extension of the delegate incentives.
As outlined in the report SEED prepared, the delegate incentives program (DIP) did yield some positive results when it came to governance participation and engagement. We believe that continuing the program and refining it to have an even more significant positive impact is the right approach. We’re in favor of the extension proposal simply because it doesn’t make sense to stop the incentives before the v1.1 that SEED is already working on is introduced. The 2-month extension will give ample time for the second iteration of DIP to be finalized and implemented.
On the occasion of our rationale communication, we also wanted to provide feedback on DIP that could inform the creation of the second version.
Overall, we’re supportive of continuing the delegate incentives program given we keep experimenting and refining how we reward delegates for their active and responsible participation in governance.
Hey! Thanks for this valuable feedback. As we’ve mentioned before, we’re collecting feedback in order to make the proposal as collectively worked as possible.
Hey! Thanks for this valuable feedback. As we’ve mentioned before, we’re collecting feedback in order to make the proposal as collectively worked as possible.
The program manager (SEED in this case) should have the flexibility to alter the eligibility criteria and rewards calculation method monthly if needed. That way, we will allow adjustments to the ever-changing landscape within the DAO and be able to incentivize the ‘right’ actions and behaviors. The only prerequisite for the alteration should be a communication of the change in advance and a reason to support the change.
The second version of DIP should last a full year instead of 6 months. That will give the program manager more time to refine the program and make it more predictable for delegates to rely on.
We agree on this point. During the first iteration of the program, we took on an observer role to understand the dynamics and actions delegates took to receive compensation. As you mentioned, six months is not enough time to introduce changes without being sure they will have a positive impact on the DAO. In version 1.1, we will take a more active role and, in consensus with the DAO, propose changes to improve the program.
This is something worth considering. Although we’re already introducing rewards calculation in the v1.1, having the possibility to dynamically change it will be an upgrade considering the next version aims for a one year extension instead of a six month one.
While we calculate the rewards for each delegate based on the participation rate on Snapshot and Tally and the posting on the forums, we want DIP v1.1 to make it clear that the responsibilities delegates who receive incentives have don’t stop there. Participating in governance is more nuanced and we should seek to give some flexibility to the program manager to assess overall participation.
That’s something we’ve been discussing a lot. While Forum Activity is something that needs constantly enhancing, a great delegate work also means being in the calls, participating in working groups and constantly checking the multiple chats delegates engage.
For this second version of the program, we’ll work to increase the activities that receive compensation. We also want delegates with high participation to be rewarded appropriately.
While we’d had preferred concrete metrics on delegate performance before voting, it buys some time to refine incentive structures.
We’ve already published our Middle-Term Report and will publish a Final Report once the first iteration of the program is completed.
Alex Lumley, Savvy Delegate - Commenting Rationale
See voting rationale here here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/7?u=alexlumley
Rationale:
These adjustments aim to maintain delegate engagement during the system transition, addressing economic fluctuations and operational needs.
Feedback for Improvement:
Alex Lumley, Savvy Delegate - Commenting Rationale
See voting rationale here here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/7?u=alexlumley
Rationale:
These adjustments aim to maintain delegate engagement during the system transition, addressing economic fluctuations and operational needs.
Feedback for Improvement:
• Financial Details: More detailed financial impact analysis is needed.
• Risk Management: Identify and mitigate financial risks.
• Community Engagement: Enhance community input to ensure the proposal aligns with broader interests.
Financial Implications:
The changes will be funded from existing reserves, emphasizing the need for a detailed budget to ensure sustainability.
Considerations for Version 2 For a future delegate incentive program, I'd like to see better tying the program to Arbitrum and making the program less dependent only on SEEDGov. This is an awesome program and we just want to make it more anti-fragile, in case anything happens to members currently running it. (This is a general principle we should take to more of our programs).
Alex Lumley, Savvy Delegate - Commenting Rationale
See voting rationale here here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/7?u=alexlumley
Rationale:
These adjustments aim to maintain delegate engagement during the system transition, addressing economic fluctuations and operational needs.
Feedback for Improvement:
• Financial Details: More detailed financial impact analysis is needed.
• Risk Management: Identify and mitigate financial risks.
• Community Engagement: Enhance community input to ensure the proposal aligns with broader interests.
Financial Implications:
The changes will be funded from existing reserves, emphasizing the need for a detailed budget to ensure sustainability.
Considerations for Version 2 For a future delegate incentive program, I'd like to see better tying the program to Arbitrum and making the program less dependent only on SEEDGov. This is an awesome program and we just want to make it more anti-fragile, in case anything happens to members currently running it. (This is a general principle we should take to more of our programs).
Castle supports this proposal.
By the results presented, the Delegate Incentives system appear to have been cost-effective. Taking into consideration also the scope of the funds still available, we believe that an extension is warranted.
The two month term proposed appears to be sensitive, giving enough time to publish, discuss and approve version 1.1 of Delegate Incentive Program.
Castle supports this proposal.
By the results presented, the Delegate Incentives system appear to have been cost-effective. Taking into consideration also the scope of the funds still available, we believe that an extension is warranted.
The two month term proposed appears to be sensitive, giving enough time to publish, discuss and approve version 1.1 of Delegate Incentive Program.
Furthermore, as a self-funded delegate Castle wishes to express the importance of programs like this one for us to be able to incentive our members to contribute to governance, making Arbitrum governance more fairly accessible by smaller delegates, increasing overall participation.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
It's critical to keep the incentivized delegates who are actively contributing to the important DAO decision makings motivated with a short-term extension. We are excited about the updated v1.1 Delegate Incentive Program as well.
Voting FOR this - the program has been effective, and given the risks to governance of voter apathy, we need mechanisms like this (and @Frisson 's staking proposal) to make sure that participation continues.
We're voting FOR this extension to strategically bridge the gap to DIS v1.1. While we'd had preferred concrete metrics on delegate performance before voting, it buys some time to refine incentive structures. This stopgap measure mitigates potential governance paralysis, but we urge a swift transition to a more data-driven, performance-based model before extending the current program or switch to 1.1 that aligns delegate rewards with tangible DAO value creation.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Considering that we are the proposers and that there are economic interests involved, we believe that it is ethically correct to abstain in this vote.
I decided to vote For.
As a delegate who has been part of the program, I can personally attest to its positive impact. It has significantly contributed to my commitment as an active delegate, allowing me to stay up to date with the DAO and thoroughly analyze decisions before voting. Being part of this ecosystem takes time, and this program enables delegates to dedicate the necessary time and fully commit to the objectives.
I decided to vote For.
As a delegate who has been part of the program, I can personally attest to its positive impact. It has significantly contributed to my commitment as an active delegate, allowing me to stay up to date with the DAO and thoroughly analyze decisions before voting. Being part of this ecosystem takes time, and this program enables delegates to dedicate the necessary time and fully commit to the objectives.
I’ve also observed many others joining the Delegate Incentive Program and improving their delegate tasks as a result.
For me, this clearly demonstrates growth in governance activity and improved performance of the DAO as a whole within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I fully support the extension of this program.
We support this proposal as it has proven effective in enhancing delegate participation, which is crucial for the DAO's success. Extending the program ensures we continue this progress while developing more comprehensive metrics to evaluate delegate performance. Additionally, considering a mix of USD and ARB for certain costs during this extension could offer better financial stability.
I voted FOR this proposal. Without delegate incentives, I believe the DAO would be wholly unable to pass constitutional quorum, thus blocking critical upgrades such as Arbitrum Stylus.
Governance participation is trending downwards due to natural forces. If a token holder who is currently delegated to an active delegate sells ARB tokens, there is no fundamental reason for the buyer to delegate. Therefore it's critical that the delegates we do have remain active.
I voted FOR this proposal. Without delegate incentives, I believe the DAO would be wholly unable to pass constitutional quorum, thus blocking critical upgrades such as Arbitrum Stylus.
Governance participation is trending downwards due to natural forces. If a token holder who is currently delegated to an active delegate sells ARB tokens, there is no fundamental reason for the buyer to delegate. Therefore it's critical that the delegates we do have remain active.
I'm hoping we can help address underlying token holder apathy via ARB Staking, but regardless I strongly believe delegate incentives will remain a critical piece of the overall governance participation puzzle going forward.
I will be voting "For".
I think this will provide a good bridge as the 6 month trial period is analyzed and improved upon for the "delegate system v1.1" is released for discussion. With no added cost to the DAO, there doesn't seem to be much downside to continue to the program (of which I think has been fairly successful).
I will be voting "For".
I think this will provide a good bridge as the 6 month trial period is analyzed and improved upon for the "delegate system v1.1" is released for discussion. With no added cost to the DAO, there doesn't seem to be much downside to continue to the program (of which I think has been fairly successful).
The SeedGov's team has done great work on this project and I see no reason not to trust them to continue running the program during this period.
My only note would be I don't want to see the next iteration be put on the backburner now that an extension has been made. I don't believe this will happen, but in the interest of 'keeping the feet to the fire' on this moving forward I would not vote to extend this again if we are voting on another small extension again in a few months.
I voted in favor of the proposal because I believe it has achieved the main objective of the program, which is to reward delegates based on the quality of their contributions
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will be voting FOR an Extend Delegate Incentives.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will be voting FOR an Extend Delegate Incentives.
We believe the Delegate Incentive program has significantly influenced delegate behavior, encouraging more active and engaged participation within the DAO. While the system isn't without its imperfections, it has proven to be robust. We also want to commend SEED LATAM for their exceptional execution and administration of this program :saluting_face:
As a general principle, I am against extending programs beyond the timeframe already outlined and approved by the DAO. The experiment was intended for six months, and any unused funds should be returned to the DAO.
However, in this particular case, I believe it is more important to keep the delegates with sufficient voting power incentivized during the discussion of a potential new incentives program. Therefore, I am in favor of the extension.
As a general principle, I am against extending programs beyond the timeframe already outlined and approved by the DAO. The experiment was intended for six months, and any unused funds should be returned to the DAO.
However, in this particular case, I believe it is more important to keep the delegates with sufficient voting power incentivized during the discussion of a potential new incentives program. Therefore, I am in favor of the extension.
Now, here’s my situation: I am going to vote AGAINST the proposal because I decided to vote against any extension of funds aimed at maintaining multisigs since the proposal for the Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service has already been approved. (I apologize for not reviewing this before Snapshot)
I think this makes sense. When we submitted this proposal, the MSS proposal was pending a vote and we did not know when it would be available.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
The program has obviously been beneficial for the DAO thus far. In general, we're pleased with how the delegate incentive program is currently going, especially after the analysis released on participation rates, and we're hopeful to see how we can gauge DAO voter performance beyond participation moving forward. As others have noted, given recent price action, SEEDGov may want to consider fixing a few of these costs to be in USD (specifically their own administration costs), and keeping others in ARB.
The past six months of practice have shown that this incentive program is highly effective and significant for delegate voting. To ensure a smooth transition, it makes perfect sense to extend this program. I fully support this proposal!
I'm in favour of extending the delegate incentive system. It has had a positive impact in participation and its quality (which was the main objective). Time is limited, and this is a way of attracting delegate talent and staying competitive in governance in favour of other DAOs that also do have a delegate incentive programme. Good experience so far. Voted abstain.
The temporary extension is necessary. It is crucial to maintaining the engagement and motivation of delegates while the new version of the system is being discussed. Given the cost-efficiency of the current system and the need to ensure continuity, extending the program for up to two months is a practical and necessary step.
VOTED for. Extending the current Delegate Incentive System is a prudent move to ensure continuity and avoid gaps in delegate motivation while transitioning to v1.1. This extension prevents disruption in incentives and maintains engagement, crucial for effective governance. The proposal supports stability and allows adequate time for refining the new system, ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted evolution of the incentive structure.
I voted FOR on this proposal. It makes sense to take the time we need to come up with a better iteration of the next version of this program and not a rushed one, and this extension gives SEED LATAM the tranquillity to deliver a thoughtful work.
Castle supports this proposal.
By the results presented, the Delegate Incentives system appear to have been cost-effective. Taking into consideration also the scope of the funds still available, we believe that an extension is warranted.
The two month term proposed appears to be sensitive, giving enough time to publish, discuss and approve version 1.1 of Delegate Incentive Program.
Castle supports this proposal.
By the results presented, the Delegate Incentives system appear to have been cost-effective. Taking into consideration also the scope of the funds still available, we believe that an extension is warranted.
The two month term proposed appears to be sensitive, giving enough time to publish, discuss and approve version 1.1 of Delegate Incentive Program.
Furthermore, as a self-funded delegate Castle wishes to express the importance of programs like this one for us to be able to incentive our members to contribute to governance, making Arbitrum governance more fairly accessible by smaller delegates, increasing overall participation.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
It's critical to keep the incentivized delegates who are actively contributing to the important DAO decision makings motivated with a short-term extension. We are excited about the updated v1.1 Delegate Incentive Program as well.
Voting FOR this - the program has been effective, and given the risks to governance of voter apathy, we need mechanisms like this (and @Frisson 's staking proposal) to make sure that participation continues.
We're voting FOR this extension to strategically bridge the gap to DIS v1.1. While we'd had preferred concrete metrics on delegate performance before voting, it buys some time to refine incentive structures. This stopgap measure mitigates potential governance paralysis, but we urge a swift transition to a more data-driven, performance-based model before extending the current program or switch to 1.1 that aligns delegate rewards with tangible DAO value creation.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Considering that we are the proposers and that there are economic interests involved, we believe that it is ethically correct to abstain in this vote.
I decided to vote For.
As a delegate who has been part of the program, I can personally attest to its positive impact. It has significantly contributed to my commitment as an active delegate, allowing me to stay up to date with the DAO and thoroughly analyze decisions before voting. Being part of this ecosystem takes time, and this program enables delegates to dedicate the necessary time and fully commit to the objectives.
I decided to vote For.
As a delegate who has been part of the program, I can personally attest to its positive impact. It has significantly contributed to my commitment as an active delegate, allowing me to stay up to date with the DAO and thoroughly analyze decisions before voting. Being part of this ecosystem takes time, and this program enables delegates to dedicate the necessary time and fully commit to the objectives.
I’ve also observed many others joining the Delegate Incentive Program and improving their delegate tasks as a result.
For me, this clearly demonstrates growth in governance activity and improved performance of the DAO as a whole within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I fully support the extension of this program.
We support this proposal as it has proven effective in enhancing delegate participation, which is crucial for the DAO's success. Extending the program ensures we continue this progress while developing more comprehensive metrics to evaluate delegate performance. Additionally, considering a mix of USD and ARB for certain costs during this extension could offer better financial stability.
I voted FOR this proposal. Without delegate incentives, I believe the DAO would be wholly unable to pass constitutional quorum, thus blocking critical upgrades such as Arbitrum Stylus.
Governance participation is trending downwards due to natural forces. If a token holder who is currently delegated to an active delegate sells ARB tokens, there is no fundamental reason for the buyer to delegate. Therefore it's critical that the delegates we do have remain active.
I voted FOR this proposal. Without delegate incentives, I believe the DAO would be wholly unable to pass constitutional quorum, thus blocking critical upgrades such as Arbitrum Stylus.
Governance participation is trending downwards due to natural forces. If a token holder who is currently delegated to an active delegate sells ARB tokens, there is no fundamental reason for the buyer to delegate. Therefore it's critical that the delegates we do have remain active.
I'm hoping we can help address underlying token holder apathy via ARB Staking, but regardless I strongly believe delegate incentives will remain a critical piece of the overall governance participation puzzle going forward.
I will be voting "For".
I think this will provide a good bridge as the 6 month trial period is analyzed and improved upon for the "delegate system v1.1" is released for discussion. With no added cost to the DAO, there doesn't seem to be much downside to continue to the program (of which I think has been fairly successful).
I will be voting "For".
I think this will provide a good bridge as the 6 month trial period is analyzed and improved upon for the "delegate system v1.1" is released for discussion. With no added cost to the DAO, there doesn't seem to be much downside to continue to the program (of which I think has been fairly successful).
The SeedGov's team has done great work on this project and I see no reason not to trust them to continue running the program during this period.
My only note would be I don't want to see the next iteration be put on the backburner now that an extension has been made. I don't believe this will happen, but in the interest of 'keeping the feet to the fire' on this moving forward I would not vote to extend this again if we are voting on another small extension again in a few months.
I voted in favor of the proposal because I believe it has achieved the main objective of the program, which is to reward delegates based on the quality of their contributions
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will be voting FOR an Extend Delegate Incentives.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will be voting FOR an Extend Delegate Incentives.
We believe the Delegate Incentive program has significantly influenced delegate behavior, encouraging more active and engaged participation within the DAO. While the system isn't without its imperfections, it has proven to be robust. We also want to commend SEED LATAM for their exceptional execution and administration of this program :saluting_face:
As a general principle, I am against extending programs beyond the timeframe already outlined and approved by the DAO. The experiment was intended for six months, and any unused funds should be returned to the DAO.
However, in this particular case, I believe it is more important to keep the delegates with sufficient voting power incentivized during the discussion of a potential new incentives program. Therefore, I am in favor of the extension.
As a general principle, I am against extending programs beyond the timeframe already outlined and approved by the DAO. The experiment was intended for six months, and any unused funds should be returned to the DAO.
However, in this particular case, I believe it is more important to keep the delegates with sufficient voting power incentivized during the discussion of a potential new incentives program. Therefore, I am in favor of the extension.
Now, here’s my situation: I am going to vote AGAINST the proposal because I decided to vote against any extension of funds aimed at maintaining multisigs since the proposal for the Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service has already been approved. (I apologize for not reviewing this before Snapshot)
I think this makes sense. When we submitted this proposal, the MSS proposal was pending a vote and we did not know when it would be available.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
The program has obviously been beneficial for the DAO thus far. In general, we're pleased with how the delegate incentive program is currently going, especially after the analysis released on participation rates, and we're hopeful to see how we can gauge DAO voter performance beyond participation moving forward. As others have noted, given recent price action, SEEDGov may want to consider fixing a few of these costs to be in USD (specifically their own administration costs), and keeping others in ARB.
The past six months of practice have shown that this incentive program is highly effective and significant for delegate voting. To ensure a smooth transition, it makes perfect sense to extend this program. I fully support this proposal!
I'm in favour of extending the delegate incentive system. It has had a positive impact in participation and its quality (which was the main objective). Time is limited, and this is a way of attracting delegate talent and staying competitive in governance in favour of other DAOs that also do have a delegate incentive programme. Good experience so far. Voted abstain.
The temporary extension is necessary. It is crucial to maintaining the engagement and motivation of delegates while the new version of the system is being discussed. Given the cost-efficiency of the current system and the need to ensure continuity, extending the program for up to two months is a practical and necessary step.
VOTED for. Extending the current Delegate Incentive System is a prudent move to ensure continuity and avoid gaps in delegate motivation while transitioning to v1.1. This extension prevents disruption in incentives and maintains engagement, crucial for effective governance. The proposal supports stability and allows adequate time for refining the new system, ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted evolution of the incentive structure.
I voted FOR on this proposal. It makes sense to take the time we need to come up with a better iteration of the next version of this program and not a rushed one, and this extension gives SEED LATAM the tranquillity to deliver a thoughtful work.
I think this makes sense. When we submitted this proposal, the MSS proposal was pending a vote and we did not know when it would be available.
But I think we can migrate the funds after paying for the month of August (which corresponds to the 6 months of the original proposal) since 3 (@cattin @Frisson @JoJo) of the DIS multisig members are current MSS members.
Do you think it is possible, considering this proposal is only in snapshots?
cc @Entropy
I voted 'FOR' the extension of the delegate incentive system because it has significantly strengthened the governance ecosystem by attracting new delegates and fostering active forum discussions. I look forward to the improvements in the new version and the continued positive impact on the DAO.
Since joining the Delegate Incentive System, I've put much more effort into my role as a delegate, with a more structured approach to casting my votes on Snapshot and Tally. The program is well-designed, encouraging even smaller delegates like myself to become deeply involved in decision-making.
I believe this program should be extended and developed into a long-term initiative.
Since joining the Delegate Incentive System, I've put much more effort into my role as a delegate, with a more structured approach to casting my votes on Snapshot and Tally. The program is well-designed, encouraging even smaller delegates like myself to become deeply involved in decision-making.
I believe this program should be extended and developed into a long-term initiative.
I voted FOR in the Snapshot vote.
I think this makes a lot of sense!
I obviously support the extention. Being here, provide meaningful comments, steer the narratives toward what we think is best for the dao, requires a lot of energy and time, and the DIP initiatives is definitely needed.
I also agree on keeping the cost the same, despite a drop in arb price. This is the problem we have in any program that is arb denominated: people are happy when price of arb goes up, unhappy when it goes down. Consistency is key here, and for just a simple 2 months extention keeping everything as is is the best choice to avoid discussion that would better be targeted to a new renewed program.
I obviously support the extention. Being here, provide meaningful comments, steer the narratives toward what we think is best for the dao, requires a lot of energy and time, and the DIP initiatives is definitely needed.
I also agree on keeping the cost the same, despite a drop in arb price. This is the problem we have in any program that is arb denominated: people are happy when price of arb goes up, unhappy when it goes down. Consistency is key here, and for just a simple 2 months extention keeping everything as is is the best choice to avoid discussion that would better be targeted to a new renewed program.
EDIT just saw the proposal is on snapshot. Voting "for".
Sounds like a good idea considering the amount of ARB left in the multisig.
This makes sense to hold over between seasons and we look forward to the discussions for the next cycle. Would be interesting to discuss the amounts and budgets due to price deprecation over the course of the program.
Additionally, it makes sense for the team expenses of operating this to be kept constant in the extension, but should definitely be reevaluated at current ARB prices for future programs.
Thanks for putting together the proposal, @SEEDGov. We are excited to see the continuation of the program that works well for the governance. Combining with the proposal with Curia, we should be able to see more insights and areas to improve going forward.
We echo the ideas that WinVerse and cp0x brought up. It would make more sense to 1) extend this program until the rest of the year to do a fresh start with improvements in 2025. 2) adjust the incentives and costs based on the price fluctuation as the program has still enough budget for those changes.
gm guys, thanks for your feedback on this topic.
However, is there a rationale as to why we don’t just extend to EOY? That way, we start the v1.1 (if it passes) when the DAO comes back from the holidays in Jan '25
gm guys, thanks for your feedback on this topic.
However, is there a rationale as to why we don’t just extend to EOY? That way, we start the v1.1 (if it passes) when the DAO comes back from the holidays in Jan '25
We believe that extending the actual program to EOY is not the best of the ideas. As we previously stated, the first iteration of the program was meant to be experimental while the second one wants to be as good as it can, eliminating any possible flaw the first program could have. Also, with the current price of the ARB token being much lower than when approved, incentives fall short as a retribution of the DIP’s parameters.
As we are already working on a v1.1 of the DIP, 2 months seems like a reasonable amount of time to discuss the next steps.
In my similar proposal , I emphasized that the program has enough funds to increase the incentive for delegates to 10,000 ARB per month, due to a significant decrease in the token price from $1.7 to $0.6.
Accordingly, I also propose doubling all other maintenance costs.
Why not consider increasing it for only 2 months without additional costs?
We know that ARB compensation to delegates will indeed be a topic of discussion in the next iteration of the program as we’ve experienced a substantial decrease in ARB value. However, the reason why we maintained cost structures for this temporary extension is because we want to focus on discuss that topics in the v1.1 of the program, while keeping this extension as simple as possible to ensure delegates continue to receive incentives in between the finalization of the v1 and the start of the v1.1.
We are already working on the v1.1 of the Delegate Incentive Program, and it will be posted on the forum within the next week.
I support the temporary extension of the DIP. I believe that using treasury funds to maintain a high level of participation could never be considered a waste of ARB. This incentive program is well structured and has proven good results in the past months, both looking at datas and at personal experience. Also looking forward to see how the new version will impact the DAO.
Hello! In my similar proposal, I emphasized that the program has enough funds to increase the incentive for delegates to 10,000 ARB per month, due to a significant decrease in the token price from $1.7 to $0.6. Accordingly, I also propose doubling all other maintenance costs.
Why not consider increasing it for only 2 months without additional costs? This could at least be considered as one of the options.
Thanks for putting this up @SEEDGov
Pending the full report from r3gen, I believe it's safe to say the delegates' incentive program has been good, and it's great to see the team wants to take ample time to bake an improved version. With that much ARB still available in the multisig, this proposal to extend the program looks like the best course of action.
Thanks for putting this up @SEEDGov
Pending the full report from r3gen, I believe it's safe to say the delegates' incentive program has been good, and it's great to see the team wants to take ample time to bake an improved version. With that much ARB still available in the multisig, this proposal to extend the program looks like the best course of action.
However, is there a rationale as to why we don't just extend to EOY? That way, we start the v1.1 (if it passes) when the DAO comes back from the holidays in Jan '25
Hi, I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO as a delegate. I was able to get just right above the threshold to be included in the program. But I have to say it wasn't easy to understand in the beginning what else is necessary. And I'm still figuring out what I have to do in what order, in order to receive anything.
I joined the DAO to help growing the Arbitrum ecosystem and tackle a few problems like spending, treasury growth and coordination. I was lucky that @GFXlabs member Paperimperium and @sid_areta were so kind to help me.
I voted Yes. Incentives aren't are waste of treasury funds. They are securing participation in a DAO and mitigating attacks like recently seen at Compund.
I think this makes sense. When we submitted this proposal, the MSS proposal was pending a vote and we did not know when it would be available.
But I think we can migrate the funds after paying for the month of August (which corresponds to the 6 months of the original proposal) since 3 (@cattin @Frisson @JoJo) of the DIS multisig members are current MSS members.
Do you think it is possible, considering this proposal is only in snapshots?
cc @Entropy
I voted 'FOR' the extension of the delegate incentive system because it has significantly strengthened the governance ecosystem by attracting new delegates and fostering active forum discussions. I look forward to the improvements in the new version and the continued positive impact on the DAO.
Since joining the Delegate Incentive System, I've put much more effort into my role as a delegate, with a more structured approach to casting my votes on Snapshot and Tally. The program is well-designed, encouraging even smaller delegates like myself to become deeply involved in decision-making.
I believe this program should be extended and developed into a long-term initiative.
Since joining the Delegate Incentive System, I've put much more effort into my role as a delegate, with a more structured approach to casting my votes on Snapshot and Tally. The program is well-designed, encouraging even smaller delegates like myself to become deeply involved in decision-making.
I believe this program should be extended and developed into a long-term initiative.
I voted FOR in the Snapshot vote.
I think this makes a lot of sense!
I obviously support the extention. Being here, provide meaningful comments, steer the narratives toward what we think is best for the dao, requires a lot of energy and time, and the DIP initiatives is definitely needed.
I also agree on keeping the cost the same, despite a drop in arb price. This is the problem we have in any program that is arb denominated: people are happy when price of arb goes up, unhappy when it goes down. Consistency is key here, and for just a simple 2 months extention keeping everything as is is the best choice to avoid discussion that would better be targeted to a new renewed program.
I obviously support the extention. Being here, provide meaningful comments, steer the narratives toward what we think is best for the dao, requires a lot of energy and time, and the DIP initiatives is definitely needed.
I also agree on keeping the cost the same, despite a drop in arb price. This is the problem we have in any program that is arb denominated: people are happy when price of arb goes up, unhappy when it goes down. Consistency is key here, and for just a simple 2 months extention keeping everything as is is the best choice to avoid discussion that would better be targeted to a new renewed program.
EDIT just saw the proposal is on snapshot. Voting "for".
Sounds like a good idea considering the amount of ARB left in the multisig.
This makes sense to hold over between seasons and we look forward to the discussions for the next cycle. Would be interesting to discuss the amounts and budgets due to price deprecation over the course of the program.
Additionally, it makes sense for the team expenses of operating this to be kept constant in the extension, but should definitely be reevaluated at current ARB prices for future programs.
Thanks for putting together the proposal, @SEEDGov. We are excited to see the continuation of the program that works well for the governance. Combining with the proposal with Curia, we should be able to see more insights and areas to improve going forward.
We echo the ideas that WinVerse and cp0x brought up. It would make more sense to 1) extend this program until the rest of the year to do a fresh start with improvements in 2025. 2) adjust the incentives and costs based on the price fluctuation as the program has still enough budget for those changes.
gm guys, thanks for your feedback on this topic.
However, is there a rationale as to why we don’t just extend to EOY? That way, we start the v1.1 (if it passes) when the DAO comes back from the holidays in Jan '25
gm guys, thanks for your feedback on this topic.
However, is there a rationale as to why we don’t just extend to EOY? That way, we start the v1.1 (if it passes) when the DAO comes back from the holidays in Jan '25
We believe that extending the actual program to EOY is not the best of the ideas. As we previously stated, the first iteration of the program was meant to be experimental while the second one wants to be as good as it can, eliminating any possible flaw the first program could have. Also, with the current price of the ARB token being much lower than when approved, incentives fall short as a retribution of the DIP’s parameters.
As we are already working on a v1.1 of the DIP, 2 months seems like a reasonable amount of time to discuss the next steps.
In my similar proposal , I emphasized that the program has enough funds to increase the incentive for delegates to 10,000 ARB per month, due to a significant decrease in the token price from $1.7 to $0.6.
Accordingly, I also propose doubling all other maintenance costs.
Why not consider increasing it for only 2 months without additional costs?
We know that ARB compensation to delegates will indeed be a topic of discussion in the next iteration of the program as we’ve experienced a substantial decrease in ARB value. However, the reason why we maintained cost structures for this temporary extension is because we want to focus on discuss that topics in the v1.1 of the program, while keeping this extension as simple as possible to ensure delegates continue to receive incentives in between the finalization of the v1 and the start of the v1.1.
We are already working on the v1.1 of the Delegate Incentive Program, and it will be posted on the forum within the next week.
I support the temporary extension of the DIP. I believe that using treasury funds to maintain a high level of participation could never be considered a waste of ARB. This incentive program is well structured and has proven good results in the past months, both looking at datas and at personal experience. Also looking forward to see how the new version will impact the DAO.
Hello! In my similar proposal, I emphasized that the program has enough funds to increase the incentive for delegates to 10,000 ARB per month, due to a significant decrease in the token price from $1.7 to $0.6. Accordingly, I also propose doubling all other maintenance costs.
Why not consider increasing it for only 2 months without additional costs? This could at least be considered as one of the options.
Thanks for putting this up @SEEDGov
Pending the full report from r3gen, I believe it's safe to say the delegates' incentive program has been good, and it's great to see the team wants to take ample time to bake an improved version. With that much ARB still available in the multisig, this proposal to extend the program looks like the best course of action.
Thanks for putting this up @SEEDGov
Pending the full report from r3gen, I believe it's safe to say the delegates' incentive program has been good, and it's great to see the team wants to take ample time to bake an improved version. With that much ARB still available in the multisig, this proposal to extend the program looks like the best course of action.
However, is there a rationale as to why we don't just extend to EOY? That way, we start the v1.1 (if it passes) when the DAO comes back from the holidays in Jan '25
Hi, I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO as a delegate. I was able to get just right above the threshold to be included in the program. But I have to say it wasn't easy to understand in the beginning what else is necessary. And I'm still figuring out what I have to do in what order, in order to receive anything.
I joined the DAO to help growing the Arbitrum ecosystem and tackle a few problems like spending, treasury growth and coordination. I was lucky that @GFXlabs member Paperimperium and @sid_areta were so kind to help me.
I voted Yes. Incentives aren't are waste of treasury funds. They are securing participation in a DAO and mitigating attacks like recently seen at Compund.
Hi, I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO as a delegate. I was able to get just right above the threshold to be included in the program. But I have to say it wasn't easy to understand in the beginning what else is necessary. And I'm still figuring out what I have to do in what order, in order to receive anything.
I joined the DAO to help growing the Arbitrum ecosystem and tackle a few problems like spending, treasury growth and coordination. I was lucky that @GFXlabs member Paperimperium and @sid_areta were so kind to help me.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why so few are joining?
Ps: im a delegate in the Aave DAO for a year now and overall active in governance.
Hi, I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO as a delegate. I was able to get just right above the threshold to be included in the program. But I have to say it wasn't easy to understand in the beginning what else is necessary. And I'm still figuring out what I have to do in what order, in order to receive anything.
I joined the DAO to help growing the Arbitrum ecosystem and tackle a few problems like spending, treasury growth and coordination. I was lucky that @GFXlabs member Paperimperium and @sid_areta were so kind to help me.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why so few are joining?
Ps: im a delegate in the Aave DAO for a year now and overall active in governance.
