Thanks for the clarifications @eugene. Given it’s a one-time retro, I’d overall agree with the given qualification criteria. A threshold of minimum voting power is maybe something to introduce in potential further iterations.
Thanks to @Eugene and @Jamilya for writing this thoughtful proposal. First, we think it’s a good idea to retroactively reward good contributions. That being said, a few things to point out:
-
Cost control: Considering that some of the contributions will most likely be self-reported as discussed, if more qualifying work keeps surfacing, the overall cost could balloon. We should consider a hard cap on total expenses.
-
Snapshot clarity: This was already discussed, but just to echo the same sentiment, set a hard end date for consideration and specify in concrete terms what qualifies as a good contribution, whether that is on calls or forums.
-
Proposal interplay: Finally, since there is an overlap with the votable supply discussions, it would be helpful to point out the overlap clearly and the effects of each proposal on the other.
2 Likes
Great initiative — rewarding governance work is long overdue.
Governance isn’t just voting, it’s research, calls, rationales, writing, reviewing, and actively shaping protocol direction. This Governance Contribution Recognition (GCR) proposal rightly recognizes that. 
The retroactive approach is a solid first step. The framework feels balanced, rewarding both consistency and depth. I especially like:
- The baseline reward to nudge passive voters toward deeper participation
- The multiplier + forum/call bonuses that reflect real contributor effort
- A clear, transparent formula to minimize subjectivity
Suggestions:
- Consider a light review panel or appeal mechanism for disputes (e.g. “I contributed but wasn’t counted”) to build trust.
- Include a section in the dashboard for GCR points tracking—visibility can motivate participation.
- Future iterations might gamify elements or include social impact scoring (e.g. forum votes/upvotes).
Overall, this sets a strong precedent not just for Scroll, but for other DAOs navigating governance incentivization. Count me in for support.
Adjusted #s
Made a revision to the google sheet to reflect what it would like with if reducing the amount given for calls and adding a multiplier for top delegates (here defined as above 100k).
Columns
- T-Y are the original formula
- Z-AE are revised with the below changed
- AF-AG include a multiplier of 1.1 for delegates with over 100k SCR
Changes
- Call attendance was multiplied by 0.5
- The bonus for 10+ calls was reduced to 2,000
- The bonus for 5+ comments was increased to 3,000
Let us know what you think and if either one of those works.
Also, if you feel as though there’s anything missing, reach out to Jamilya or Eugene.
Working group
We will be posting a new version of this proposal by the end of the week. We will also share some revised numbers to look at / get feedback on before then.
I do want to flag that we will be adding the creation of a temporary working group for 4-5 weeks to create a proposal for the next iteration of GCR.
This working group will be 5 people total, 2 of whom will be from the governance team, and 3 will be delegates and/or relevant experts. The governance team would start the hiring process as soon as the proposal passes. A form would be generated where people could apply. We would be happy to include a question asking for consent to share publicly if there’s a desire for more transparency.
The role would include a $2,250.00 USD equivalent stipend per member to partake in a ~3-4 week working group (NOTE: Foundation employees do not receive the stipend). Each member is expected to contribute 30 hours during the 3-4 weeks. The expected outcome is to present a formal proposal for the next iteration of the GCR, including background research.
Comment reactions
Thank you and @bitblondy for the clarification in this regard. @ACI do you mind sharing your thoughts on this as I know you had also initially flagged this.
Agreed. We are going to suggest including the formation of a temporary working group to come up with the first iteration going forward, and the intent is that the working group will define both the inclusion criteria and guidelines for qualitative inputs.
I know this one was brought up a few times and we can include a minimum (would be interested at what amount) if there is strong interest in it.
These are gathered from onchain data, forum, data from the Negation Game team, and transcripts from all of the recorded calls. We are taking case by case evaluations on corrections (not all of which are reflected yet), so far all reviewed claims have had corroborating data and will be included. If you have something we missed, reach out to Jamilya or me.
The data in the original proposal had a cut off of April 15. If people want that adjusted, I would recommend Apr 30 for cleanliness.
As of now, we are operating with the following understandings:
- For calls, we were just counting attendance. This means there is an inherent overpayment as not everyone was active on all the calls that they attended. As a result, and given feedback, we will decrease the payout. Again, we do not recommend using this metric in the future.
- In terms of the forum, a meaningful contribution is one that does one of the below. There would definitely need to be clear guidelines in place if this type of metric is used in the future. The governance team sees this topic as one potential area for exploring experiments.
- adds context or understanding to the idea at hand,
- asks questions that lead to useful context or understanding in the response, or
- present alternative ideas or arguments.
- For voting, good contribution is voting at least once in the first three onchain votes.
Given this is a one time retro, we are keeping it informal. Reach out to Jamilya or me. Future iterations will have something more robust.
These are good things to keep in mind for future iterations.
7 Likes
We want to extend a big thank you to Eugene and the Scroll Foundation team for putting forward this proposal and taking the first step toward retroactively recognizing contributions to governance. This is a meaningful initiative that not only acknowledges the time and effort delegates have already put in, but also sets a strong precedent for building a more active and engaged DAO.
Retroactive rewards are a powerful way to highlight the importance of participation in governance. We’re fully aligned with this direction and excited to see the commitment to creating a Governance Contribution Recognition (GCR) system. Clear and fair pathways for recognizing contributors play a key role in strengthening a culture of collaboration and accountability throughout the Scroll ecosystem.
Considering all the feedback above and the new version of the proposal, we’re supportive of the GCR moving forward to a vote. For future iterations, we think it would be great to see a proposal for building a dashboard with all this information — it could be really valuable, even for delegate reputation tracking. 
3 Likes
Thank you everyone for your responses and feedback!
Also, a special thanks to those who flagged missed data - much appreciated. The spreadsheet has now been updated accordingly.
As a follow-up to the call we had on Wednesday, and as we continue to receive input on how to proceed, here’s a quick update and a few action points:
Action Points:
-
Final review: This is the last call to review your data. If you spot any inconsistencies, please let us know as soon as possible.
-
Proposal to include:
We’ve also received suggestion to add Matt Haynes and Nick Almond (@drnick, Factory Labs) to the contribution list. Even though they didn’t hit the voting threshold, they’ve shown up regularly to calls, have contributed meaningfully and helped to shape proposals such as Delegate training proposal. Since this process is really about recognizing meaningful contributions, we think it makes sense to include them as an exception. Let us know what you think! -
Formula decision:
We need to decide whether to proceed with the original formula or the updated version. Please indicate your preference and endorsement. -
Next steps:
We’d like to make the process of tracking and recognizing governance contributions smoother and easier to follow in the future.
As mentioned earlier, we’re thinking of setting up a working group (for about 4–5 weeks) to put together a proposal for the next iteration of the GCR. We’ll share more details soon on how we plan to kick off that process.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
7 Likes
I do commend the team work in seeing that this goes through fairly, I do also believe there’s no way to get to please everyone when it comes to something like this.
I agree to including Matt and Nick, as I have been on calls and heard them drop valuable insights. I believe we can make an exception for them, for this very first retro contribution recognition.
On the subject of the formula, I stand with having the original formula for this. Let the working group which will be setup, be in charge of fine tuning future iterations.
1 Like
Thinking through this one here in this rationale.
1 Like
Thanks @Jamilya for the summary and putting up a revised version.
The adjustments made regarding the call attendance “weight” and multiplier for top delegates seem reasonable to me, as multiple delegates have pointed this out. I therefore would support the updated version.
That includes adding Matt Haynes and Nick Almond and subsequently not incorporating a voting power threshold for the scope of this retro round. I also support the suggestion of a short term working group to cover potential future iterations of the GCR.
From my perspective, the proposal is in a good state, and I’d endorse it for voting.
1 Like
For the (future) incentive program, a key thing to reward IMO is proposal creation
- as long as said proposals are selfless, i.e. the proposer doesn’t benefit directly
The above would be a low-hanging fruit to incentivise the delegates to be pro-active as opposed to just commenting on proposals but the DAO lacking any forward momentum.
As a phase after the initial reward for proposals, more could be added. From a basic GPT list, these are the responsibilities of a board:
- Governance & Oversight
- Ensure the company operates within legal and ethical boundaries
- Set policies and frameworks for company governance
- Monitor compliance and risk management
- Strategic Direction
- Approve and guide long-term strategy and mission
- Challenge and support executive management on strategic plans
- Hiring & Evaluating Leadership
- Hire, evaluate, and (if necessary) replace the CEO or Managing Director
- Oversee succession planning for key leadership roles
- Financial Oversight
- Approve budgets, major expenditures, and financial statements
- Monitor financial performance and ensure adequate resources
- Fiduciary Duties
- Duty of care: Make informed, diligent decisions
- Duty of loyalty: Act in the best interest of the company and its shareholders
- Duty of obedience: Ensure the company follows its stated mission (especially for nonprofits)
- Risk Management
- Identify and oversee management of key risks
- Ensure appropriate internal controls and audits are in place
- Stakeholder Accountability
- Represent and protect shareholders’ (or members’) interests
- Ensure transparency and communication with key stakeholders
- Culture & Ethics
- Set the tone at the top and promote ethical behavior
- Monitor corporate culture and organizational health
We could take a similar list and start debating each item using the Negation Game cc @connormcmk then once we have the list of responsibilities, we can look at what behaviours demonstrate the above and think about how to reward them.
3 Likes
As final feedback, we consider the updated version of the formula is better at capturing some of the nuances that were broadly discussed and doesn’t significantly alter the original allocations, therefore we’re comfortable to support it as final. Also we definitely agree on including @Matt_FactoryLabs and @drnick in the GCR, their contributions haven’t gone unnoticed and also opened the floor for discussing contributions on a wider sense.
Considering the heavy consensus building effort behind the proposal, as verified delegates we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.
3 Likes
Thank you, everyone @LifeofDan-EL , @connormcmk, @bitblondy, @danielo @SEEDGov !
Great to see the general support of this proposal going forward!
Call to all other delegates to share their thoughts on the proposal and express their preference asap whether to proceed with the original or updated formula.
Also, @danielo could you elaborate a bit further on what do you mean by the the responsibilities of a board in the GCR context? Also, please share whether you’re in support of this proposal and which formula you think it’s best to proceed with.
3 Likes
What channel should we use to reach out to you for this?
Gm! Tg is usually great, sent you a message.
1 Like
We appreciate your openness @eugene to evolving the definition of “meaningful contribution” We’re happy to support further discussion and development in this area for the next iteration of GCR.
We developed the Forum Score Dashboard for Optimism & Arbitrum, which evaluates participation through a weighted set of eight core metrics: proposals initiated, proposals discussed, proposal average likes received, topic count, post count, likes received, time read, and days visited.
While metrics are useful for surfacing participation patterns, no scoring system can fully capture all valuable contributions, especially qualitative efforts like off-forum participation. It’s also important to recognize that metric weights may require ongoing calibration as community priorities shift. Periodic review and feedback are essential to ensure the system remains aligned with real goals, rather than incentivizing only surface-level activity.
We appreciate the initiative to establish a temporary working group for the next iteration of GCR. We’re keen to contribute insights from our experience designing forum metrics and dashboards in other ecosystems. Looking forward to following the progress and finding ways to collaborate further.
Final thought for the revised formula, we believe it’s moving in the right direction. It better captures the range of ways people contribute and there’s no significant difference from the original. Appreciate the updates @Jamilya @eugene We’re happy to support moving forward with this.
2 Likes
As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.
1 Like
As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.
1 Like
As a verified delegate I believe this proposal is ready to go to vote!
1 Like
As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.
1 Like
The updated version for the GCR looks good to us! As a verified delegate we endorse this proposal to go up for a vote.
1 Like