Proposal: Governance Contribution Recognition (Cycle 2: May - December 2025)

Proposal Title

Governance Contribution Recognition (Cycle 2: May - December 2025)

Proposal Type

Governance
Proposal Authors: @Bitblondy, @Seiryuu, @kevinknielsen & Alex Sampson (Proxy)

Summary

Continuation of Delegate Incentives: This proposal launches the second iteration of the Governance Contribution Recognition (GCR) program to reward Scroll DAO delegates for their contributions from May 1st through December 31st, 2025. The 8 months will be split in two parts, with one retroactive period (reward structure included in this proposal) and one future part (rewards to be processed in December).

It follows the successful first GCR program that covered Oct 2024 – Apr 2025, extending Scroll’s commitment to recognize governance work. Here, we propose a 4-tier, performance-based scoring system (Tier 4 up to Tier 1). Delegates are scored on multiple criteria (onchain voting rate, forum participation, level of involvement in the Scroll ecosystem, etc.), producing a final performance percentage. Based on their total score, delegates fall into one of four tiers (60–70%, 70–80%, 80–90%, 90–100%), with higher tiers earning greater rewards. This tiered approach attempts to balance between preventing gamification (this prevention can introduce a degree of subjectivity) and distinguishing the quality of contribution.

This proposal requests a total budget of 580,000 SCR for this 8-month period’s rewards (approx. ~$209,000 at $0.36 /SCR). As in the first cycle, rewards are denominated in SCR and allocated to delegates according to their tier following the passage of this proposal.

By financially rewarding meaningful governance work, this program aims to incentivize delegates to remain active and engaged, improve the quality of deliberation, signal that Scroll will continue to value long-term quality governance contribution, and fairly account for as many possible methods of contribution as possible. We expect to retain top-performing delegates and encourage new delegates to contribute meaningfully to Scroll’s governance ecosystem.

Motivation

Having an active and knowledgeable delegate base is a critical step toward building a system of competent, decentralized governance. That said, it’s important for a DAO to recognize governance work and the delegates actively shaping Scroll DAO and its ecosystem. The first GCR program acknowledged this by retroactively rewarding those involved in Scroll’s governance after the DAO’s launch.

We now want to take that further, supporting the work done since then to develop Scroll DAO. This follow-up proposal (GCR Cycle 2) continues that mission for the next evaluation period, ensuring that active delegates are recognized for their efforts and contribute further.

While the first iteration successfully rewarded many contributors, some criteria could be optimized to promote quality over quantity. At the same time, we still want new contributors to be able to join; this proposal aims to strike a balance between inclusivity and standardization.

In this proposal, we refined the criteria to focus on meaningful participation and rewarding depth of engagement more than passive activity. Our aim is to encourage a higher standard of contribution, while also leaving room for future GCR cycles to reward deeper levels of engagement and professionalize the delegate role even further.

In the past five weeks, our Working Group has analyzed multiple delegate incentive models (including Optimism, Arbitum, Uniswap, and ParaSwap, among others). We attempted to aggregate as many learnings as possible across those different ecosystems to inform the criteria design for the GCR Cycle 2. We noted, for instance, that many successful programs set a minimum participation threshold for eligibility and use tiered rewards or points-based systems to differentiate performance. Drawing on these insights, we adapted relevant criteria to Scroll’s context.

Execution

Operational

Program Structure: The GCR Cycle 2 program will evaluate delegate activity over the period May – December 2025 and assign each eligible delegate a performance score (0–100%). This score is based on a weighted combination of criteria that capture both onchain and offchain governance contributions. We then categorize delegates into 4 tiers according to their score (Tier 1 = 90–100%, Tier 2 = 80–89.9%, Tier 3 = 70–79.9%, Tier 4 = 60–69.9%).

Only delegates who score at least 60% will receive a reward. This ensures a basic level of involvement is met, in line with other programs that require ~70% participation to qualify. Delegates below the 60% cutoff (i.e. with minimal engagement in this period) would not be compensated in this cycle.

Required Minimum Criteria: Delegates must meet the following criteria to be eligible for the GCR Cycle 2 program:

  1. Scroll Verified Delegate: To align incentives among delegates who receive compensation from this program and the broader Scroll DAO, awardees must be Scroll Verified Delegates. This includes having a minimum 2500 SCR delegated to you and having greater than 5 delegators. A snapshot is taken at the end of the respective payout period, which allows new delegates to join during the cycle.
  2. Disclosures & Conflict of Interest: Any party who maintains status as a service provider or otherwise is compensated by the Scroll Foundation for any activities must include a conflict of interest statement in their Agora profile and their delegate thread. Service providers won’t be excluded from being compensated, but they must be transparent about their involvement.

Scoring Criteria: The following criteria (decided by the working group after analyzing multiple DAO programs) will be used to calculate each delegate’s score. Each criterion will be measured quantitatively where possible, with data pulled from on-chain records and the Scroll governance forum. For qualitative factors, the working group performed a good-faith evaluation based on available evidence such as post history. We aim to be as transparent as possible with regards to any qualitative-based decisions. The criteria and their implementation are:

  1. Voting Participation: Users that vote on proposals are given a percentage score equal to the percentage of proposals that they voted on during this time period. Users that voted 8/11 proposals, for example, are given a score of 72.72% for this criterion. We recognize that new delegates entering Scroll governance (e.g. through the Delegate Accelerator) may not have a deep voting history.

    • Weight and rationale: High. This criterion ensures reliability in participation. Delegates who voted in all proposals in this cycle get full marks for this category, whereas missing votes will reduce the score proportionally.
  2. Rationale Rate: Users who post rationale for their votes on the governance forum are, similar to voting participation, given a proportional percentage score equal to percent of rationales that they posted. Users that posted 8/11 rationales in this time period would score 72.72% for this criterion.

    • Weight and rationale: Moderate. We reward delegates who not only vote, but also provide context or reasoning for their votes. That said, we did not want to over-index on posting rationale. It is a valuable part of decentralized governance, but we didn’t wish to heavily punish users who do not take part in this aspect of governance.
  3. Forum Engagement (Discussion & Feedback): Using Curia’s Forum Score, users are assigned a percentage score that is calculated through a formula which represents their total contributions to the Scroll forums. Users that earn a Forum Score of 82, for example, are given a score of 82% for this criterion. Teams with multiple Forum accounts, but one onchain identity, will receive an aggregated Forum Score.

    • Weight and rationale: Moderate. This metric measures constructive contributions on the Scroll governance forum. This includes meaningful forum posts such as analyzing proposals, offering feedback during the ideation phase, and engaging in discussions that shape governance outcomes. Rather than focusing on raw post numbers, Curia scores contributions higher if the user is an active participant that offers real value to the DAO. Curia’s Forum Score consists of three parts: Proposal Score (PS), Engagement Score (ES), and Activeness Score (AS). Read Curia’s proposal to learn more. Although we are not including a dedicated Curia dashboard in this budget request (see an example here), this one-time integration leaves that as an option for future GCR cycles.

The next two categories capture other positive contributions that aren’t covered above.

  1. Community Involvement (Call Attendance): This category is only used for the second payout of GCR Cycle 2. Due to a change in the Google Meet transcripts, we were not able to track the call participants from May to August. The gov team will introduce another method of tracking call attendance in the near future, and this criterion will be considered for the second payout.

    • Weight and rationale: Low. While we reduced the emphasis on call attendance (responding to feedback that active contribution matters more than just being present), we still provide a small bonus to delegates who regularly attended Scroll’s governance calls.
  2. Community Involvement (Workshops & Ecosystem Initiatives): Delegates who participated in at least one workshop and at least one Harmonica session were given a 100% score in this category. Delegates who participated in either one workshop or Harmonica session were given a 75% score.

    • Weight and rationale: Low. While we want to incentivize delegates of Scroll to get more involved in further ecosystem initiatives, we don’t want to weight their importance too heavily.

Tier Definitions and Rewards: All the above criteria are compiled into a single performance score for each delegate. The scoring process was handled objectively: the working group used on-chain data for voting history, Curia for forum engagement, and internal tracking sheets (e.g. workshop attendance) to calculate each component for every delegate. To illustrate, an exemplary top-performing delegate might have 95% vote participation, detailed rationales for each vote, multiple quality forum contributions, and attended most ecosystem initiatives, yielding a score in the ~95% range (Tier 1).

Rewards are funded entirely in SCR tokens from the Scroll DAO treasury (as was done previously). The Tiers are relative to each other (i.e., a Tier 4 delegate will receive 60% of the compensation of a Tier 1 delegate).

  • Tier 1 (Score ≥ 90%). These delegates demonstrated near-complete participation and consistently high-quality engagement.
  • Tier 2 (Score 80–89.9)%. These delegates are moderately active and met most criteria with strong performance.
  • Tier 3 (Score 70–79.9%). These delegates are adequately active and participated to a satisfactory level (e.g. decent voting record and some forum/ecosystem initiative involvement, but shows room to improve in consistency or depth.
  • Tier 4 (Score 60–69.9%). These delegates met the basic eligibility requirements, but had limited engagement beyond that.

Calculation

Final Score (first payout)

Each criterion was scored as a percentage from 0–100:

  • VP = Voting Participation
  • RR = Rationale Rate
  • FE = Forum Engagement
  • WS = Workshops / Ecosystem Initiatives

Weights: High = 0.8, Moderate = 0.5, Low = 0.3.

For this half-cycle, we use: VP (0.8), RR (0.5), FE (0.5), and WS (0.3).

Final Score (FS) = [(0.8 x VP) + (0.5 x RR) + (0.5 x FE) + (0.3 x WS)] / [0.8 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.3] = [(0.8 x VP) + (0.5 x RR) + (0.5 x FE) + (0.3 x WS)] / 2.1

Example FS Calculations:

A perfect-scoring delegate would receive a FS of 100:

[(0.8 x 100) + (0.5 x 100) + (0.5 x 100) + (0.3 x 100)] / 2.1 = [80 + 50 + 50 + 30] / 2.1 = 100

For a delegate who scored 100% for VP, 75% for RR, 75% for FE, and 50% for WS, their FS would be calculated as follows:

[(0.8 x 100) + (0.5 x 75) + (0.5 x 75) + (0.3 x 50)] / 2.1 = [80 + 37.5 + 37.5 + 15] / 2.1 = 80.95

This delegate would fall into Tier 2.

Final Score (second payout)

The same base formula from the first payout will be used, but with the added Community Call (CC) criterion.

For this half-cycle, we use: VP (0.8), RR (0.5), FE (0.5), WS (0.3), and CC (0.3).

Final Score (FS) = [(0.8 x VP) + (0.5 x RR) + (0.5 x FE) + (0.3 x WS) + (0.3 x CC)] / [0.8 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.3 + 0.3] = [(0.8 x VP) + (0.5 x RR) + (0.5 x FE) + (0.3 x WS) + (0.3 x CC)] / 2.4

Example FS Calculation (second payout):

A perfect-scoring delegate would receive a FS of 100:

[(0.8 x 100) + (0.5 x 100) + (0.5 x 100) + (0.3 x 100) + (0.3 x 100)] / 2.4 = [80 + 50 + 50 + 30 + 30] / 2.4 = 100

Personnel & Resources

The execution of the GCR Cycle 2 will primarily involve the Governance Contribution Reward Working Group in collaboration with the Scroll Foundation’s governance team.

  • Working Group (Authors): Bitblondy, Seiryuu, and Proxy will oversee the final scoring and allocation selection process. They have already conducted research and gathered data as part of drafting this proposal. Post-approval, they will double-check all criteria computations, incorporate any community feedback, and prepare the final list of reward recipients with amounts.
  • Scroll Foundation: The Scroll Foundation’s governance team will assist with fund disbursement once the proposal passes. The team also assisted in setting up the working group’s operations and occasionally attended the group’s meetings.

Financial

This 8-month cycle is split in two parts, allocating 70,000 SCR per month:

  • May - August (4 months retro): 280,000 SCR
  • September - December (4 months): 280,000 SCR

The total request is 580,000 SCR. The SCR allocation per Tier will be posted once we have the data finalized with the total number of delegates per category.

  • __ SCR total for Tier 1 delegates
  • __ SCR total for Tier 2 delegates
  • __ SCR total for Tier 3 delegates
  • __ SCR total for Tier 4 delegates
  • ~20,000 SCR for Curia Integration / one-time payment ($7500)

Any funds that are unused will remain in the treasury. There are no other costs associated with this proposal.

Please note: Eligible delegates will have to complete KYC/KYB in order to receive compensation. The distribution is not executed automatically. The verification is valid for 6 months; participants of the last retro payment in May won’t need to repeat it for now.

Initial Breakdown

This is a preliminary breakdown for the first (retroactive) payout of GCR Cycle 2, covering May 1st - August 31st, based on the rules above. A second breakdown will follow after the end of the iteration in November or December.

Please note: These are not the final scores. The forum score (accounting for ~25% of the weight), will be provided by Curia by the end of August. We should be able to share the final scores and Tiers before the September voting cycle starts.

Here is a Google sheet version. Feel free to double-check the data and message us if you have any concerns or questions. If you cannot find yourself in the list, please check if you are a verified delegate and make sure your Agora profile is linked in your forum account or delegate thread.

Evaluation

We will measure the success of the GCR Cycle 2 program by the following outcomes and metrics. The evaluation will be posted to the forums together with the compensation of the 2nd half of this iteration in Nov/Dec, after the conclusion of Cycle 2, to help inform the design of Cycle 3.

  • The # of delegates voting on proposals
  • The # of delegates engaging constructively in the forums
  • The # of delegates participating in ecosystem initiatives including Harmonica and Negation Game.
  • The # of delegates voting on more than 50% of proposals
  • The # increase in delegate threads on the forum
  • The average # of quality comments a proposal or significant discussion gets
  • The # of attendees in governance calls
  • The # of delegates participating (delegate retention rate), between the first and second payout

Open questions for the DAO

We are looking forward to your feedback, particularly on the following aspects:

  • Timeframe: With the working group’s mandate covering 6 months, the second half of this GCR iteration would end on October 31. Alternatively, the period could be extended to 8 months, ending December 31, with the budget adjusted accordingly.
  • Incentive criteria: Do you find the selected criteria reasonable? Please share any alternative options or relevant data sources.
  • Tiered compensation: Do you agree with the proposed approach and the 60% cutoff? We support having a minimum participation standard in the GCR. Given that this iteration includes two payout periods, new delegates would still have the opportunity to join in the second half.
  • Budget: Do you feel the proposed compensation is reasonable? We based it on the budget from the retro, while also considering the comparatively low participation barriers in the first iteration.
  • Evaluation criteria: Do you have suggestions for additional KPIs?

Conclusion

The Governance Contribution Reward Working Group proposes a structure and criteria for GCR Cycle 2. GCR Cycle 2 is a refined, tiered delegate incentive program to reward May-December 2025 governance contributions and to set the stage for sustained delegate engagement. We have preserved the spirit of the first GCR initiative, recognizing that “governance is work” and should be compensated while incorporating community feedback and cross-DAO best practices to improve fairness and impact. Key changes include a performance tier system (to reward quality over quantity and discourage gaming) and updated criteria that emphasize active, transparent, and thoughtful governance participation. By approving this proposal, Scroll DAO will disburse up to 440,000 SCR in rewards to those who have actively stewarded the protocol’s governance in the past five months.

The working group appreciates the community’s trust in allowing us to craft this proposal. We have strived to make the process and outcome as transparent and merit-based as possible.

11 Likes

We appreciate the GCR Working Group team @bitblondy @Seiryuu @kevinknielsen and Alex Sampson, for your effort in putting together this detailed GCR Cycle 2 proposal.

To answer the open questions :

We are open to supporting the extension of GCR Cycle 2 to 8 months, as this could give delegates more time to meaningfully participate and earn rewards. Additionally, we would love to see GCR program evolve from a retroactive model to a more periodic reward schedule, such as monthly, quarterly, or by governance cycle. This would offer more consistent recognition of delegate contributions and provide participants with greater predictability regarding their compensation. It would also create a valuable feedback loop, allowing delegates to assess and improve their contributions throughout the program, not just after it concludes.

We do find the incentive criteria reasonable. Giving the highest weight to voting participation and moderate weight to rationales and forum engagement seems fair to us, as this reflects both the reliability of showing up to vote and the added value of contributing context that strengthens governance decisions. It might also be worth considering having a dashboard to track delegate performance for Scroll in the future, including each criterion. This would improve transparency and make it easier for both delegates and the working group to monitor contributions.

We do agree to set a minimum percentage threshold in order to receive GCR rewards, since the goal of the GCR is to recognize active participation. The 60% cutoff strikes a fair balance between inclusivity and accountability. I strongly support maintaining a tiered structure since it rewards excellence.

We feel the proposed compensation is reasonable, as it aligns with the budget from the first cycle. We look forward to seeing the distribution per tier once the data is finalized.

We suggest including Delegate Retention Rate as an additional KPI, tracking how many active delegates from Cycle 1 continue into Cycle 2. This metric helps measure the long-term effectiveness of the GCR program, ensures continuity and quality in governance, and signals whether the incentive structure is successfully motivating sustained engagement.

4 Likes

Glad to see a well flushed out proposal from the working group.

I understand the point behind having 5 delegators, but its difficult to prove that these 5 are independent actors. I suggest skipping this unless a robust antisybil mechanism can be in place to serve the intended purpose.

Additionally, many delegates were unable to receive their comp from the previous cycle due the compliance challenges from the foundation. During the initial airdrop, the delegation platform also did not work as intended leaving many delegates unable to receive delegation at a time when most delegations happen in DAOs. A combination of these factors make it unfair for delegates who were not able to receive delegation through no fault of their own. I suggest we either skip the 2500 SCR requirment for this cycle, or apply it such that the delegate needs to have this amount delegated at the time of the application or lower the amount to 1000.

A better judgement of commitment to the DAO is if the delegate held on to atleast a part of the SCR which they received as rewards in the last cycle. Maybe this can be considered instead of the delegated amount or the delegate can be given an option to fulfil atleast of the criteria.

It is a nice solution, however delegates who have multiple members posting from different accounts are not accurately measured. I suggest the application to ask each delegate to post links to all their accounts and for @Curia to link these accounts to their dashboard.

4 Likes

Thanks for your proposal. It is interesting to see this type of incentive to attract/retain actors willing to contribute.

In general lines, I agree with what it tries to measure (activity/contributions) and, as the DAO is relatively new, the metrics are reasonable. I know that no set of rules will make everyone happy, and we need to guide the program by a few, but I want to touch on this point.

Delegates who joined later will have a harder time getting meaningful delegation despite their contribution to proposal discussions, initiatives or working groups. As I believe the idea here is not (for now) to stimulate quorum on voting in proposals, this specific part may need to be rethought.

Overall, excellent job!

4 Likes

Thank you for bringing forward the proposal.

We believe is a crucial step for strengthening Scroll’s governance. We fully support this initiative, as it provides consistent and responsible recognition for the work of Scroll delegates. The adoption of a performance-based tier system (Tier 4 to 1) marks an important step forward by prioritizing quality over quantity, ensuring fair incentives while preventing abuse. The proposed budget is aligned with the previous cycle and offers predictability for participants. Also the focus on multiple criteria, including on-chain participation rate, forum engagement, and broader ecosystem involvement, strengthens the representativeness of the program.

The continuation of this initiative demonstrates Scroll’s commitment to sustainable and well-structured governance, creating real incentives for delegates to remain active and contribute with depth to the DAO.

2 Likes

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful replies and suggestions. We plan on formally editing our main post this Friday and we’ll continue to collect community feedback in the meantime.

This seems to be a point of consensus so far, so if there are no major objections, we will likely edit our proposal on Friday to reflect this.

This is a great point, but it might not apply from the Cycle 1 → Cycle 2 transition. The reason being: our minimum criteria for this cycle will exclude some delegates from the first cycle. We could, however, create a Delegate Retention KPI that begins during the 2nd payout of Cycle 2.

We appreciate the perspective you provided here. We’re more in favor of continuing as-is with the minimum criteria; it was a point of debate amongst the program authors and we settled on these factors as a fair cutoff. Comparing this proposal with other DIPs, we already went with rather low requirements. We wanted delegates to have a minimum level of proven “skin in the game,” using a system already put into place by the gov team, and for the base criteria to be a bit more exclusive than the first retro. Note that this is part of the reason that we decided to split the Cycle into two payouts; it also gives delegates who were not included in the first half to meet the requirements for the 2nd half.

We’ve flagged this to the Curia team and this is being worked on prior to the final Forum Scores being announced.

Thanks for providing both of these perspectives. While it will be difficult for new delegates to receive delegations, we wanted to leave the door open for them to do so. It’s a difficult problem to solve - we wanted to have stricter base criteria vs. the retro, while not completely excluding the new delegates from this cycle. This was the closest middle ground solution that we landed on. It’s also important to note that very few delegate incentive programs reward brand new members to the DAO; this proposal leaves the door open for that to happen, but it also can help new delegates to learn what behaviors may be rewarded for future cycles.

We appreciate the support!

1 Like

Thanks everybody for their feedback so far!

A small note for delegates:

To simplify data collection, the @Curia team has provided a public verification tool to link your forum account with your delegate wallet (see thread).

Delegates can complete verification by signing a message with their wallet and posting the signature in the forum. This is the same trusted method already used by delegates in ecosystems like Optimism, Arbitrum, and Obol.

Completing this one-time verification ensures your forum activity is correctly attributed for the upcoming retroactive payout. While it’s not mandatory for compensation, it helps match Forum and Agora accounts, so we encourage delegates to verify.

3 Likes

We are in favor of initiatives that drive more decentralization and encourage diverse participation in the DAO, so we will support this proposal.

As the DAO grows, adding more contributors is important to ensure responsibilities are shared more widely. If sustained across multiple cycles, this program could help Scroll foster a stronger and professional delegate and contributor community.

Agree with @jengajojo_daoplomats, while we understand it may signal broader trust from token holders, it could also be a barrier for delegates who have over 2.5K SCR delegated but fewer delegators.

Even with fewer delegators, a delegate can still meaningfully contribute to the protocol.

2 Likes

Directionally, this works for me. One adjustment I suggest is about increasing the lower weight given to forum participation, and this relates to the foundational question about what we are incentivising.

Voting is useful for the security of the DAO, so ok with that.
Rationales for votes can be useful as feedback and for token holders to track delegates reasons.
But in terms of diversity, there’s value only if it leads to better proposals and decisions. Feedback before a vote leads to a better final proposal. But after a vote is cast, the feedback is of little use for improvements. As such, (quality) forum participation is super valuable.
Also, Negation Game could replace the forum soon for this, so the value should be agnostic about the tool (discourse or negation game or otherwise). If anything, incentivising the use of NG over Discourse would lead to more structured thinking as forums are not well-suited for deliberation.

3 Likes

Thank you so much to the GCR working group team, recognizing the difficulty of this task to create a program that will reward quality governance, reducing the potential for gaming and all within a short time frame. This proposal has met all those requirements exceedingly, and especially since most ecosystem DIP programs are contentious regardless, so I applaud and appreciate the hard work and thoughtfulness put into this proposal.

I have a couple of questions about the CGR’s eligibility criteria, specifically, regarding the >5 delegations rule.

How will this impact graduates of the Delegate Accelerator program who could receive up to 5,000 SCR from a single delegation (i.e. the program multi-sig wallet)? They could meet the 2,500 SCR minimum but not the delegation count.

Excluding potentially 15-20 graduates from the CGR 2nd half cycle (Sept-Oct) could be counterproductive to the DAP goals and KPI’s of fostering new, active delegates. What is the plan to ensure these individuals are incentivized to continue their governance activities within Scroll and was the DAP participants discussed in the creation of this proposal? (For full disclosure, I am a participant in the Delegate Accelerator program and my question addresses for all DAP participants, as well as my own interest).

I support the extension of Cycle 2 to include November and December, and this may also address my first question about the DAP participants to allow them to gain additional delegations for criteria participation as well as the 60% minimum score, which I support as a good balance for more inclusion and rewarding of quality participation.

If the Cycle 2 is extended and the CGR’s mandate extends to support this cycle, will the GCR working group require additional budget approval from the DAO beyond their 30K SCR approved for the team members compensation payment?

Also in regards to the budget, if the consensus is to extend the second iteration to December, will this budget need to be adjusted to reflect the increased two months of 140,000 SCR for the Tier reward allocations?

Regarding the edibility criteria, when is this “snapshot” taken for participation? Is it at the start (and must be maintained during the entire cycle timeframe) that the delegate must meet all eligibility criteria or is this “snapshot” determined at the close of the cycle timeframe? For example, if a delegate reaches the 60%, 2,500 SCR and >5 delegators half way through the cycle active timeframe, is the delegate eligible for the GCR rewards from that cycle?

I support @danielo comments regarding the Negation Game as a more defined forum participation that reflects a delegates thought process, and hope to see the next potential cycle of the GCR consider how to incorporate (and possibly give more weight to) forum comments before a vote, in addition to rationales use for commentary.

And finally, @Curia comments regarding consideration for evolving the payment schedule is something that we should consider for future cycle programs, and the Curia dashboard will provide not only incentives, delegate self-improvements, and transparency for GCR program participants, but also real time visibility.

Updated thoughts: I do strongly support all delegates, including Delegate Accelerator Program participants, should be considered eligible to participate in the 2nd term of the GCR Cycle (Sept-Oct and potentially if extended to December) if the “snapshot” of meeting all the criteria requirements is determined before the payouts totals are determined. This will allow for all new GCR program participants to obtain all the required program criteria during the cycle term.

2 Likes

@kevinknielsen if users have published their rationales using the Negation Game, will that count toward their rationale rate?

2 Likes

Thanks @danielo. Posting your voting rationale and forum score are both weighted moderately; when they’re combined, those two factors are already weighted more than voting alone. We’re of the opinion that those two aspects of forum participation combined are slightly more valuable than voting alone, but voting is the most important single action that a delegate can take.

Thank you both for your thoughts, I hope we can add some color to our decision here. With regards to the new delegates entering the DAO from the Delegate Accelerator, a 5000 SCR delegation is already quite a substantial reward. It’s relatively unprecedented for a DAO to pay brand new delegates, but our proposal currently gives them a shot at being compensated in the 2nd payout. They can also support each other in delegating to one another to meet that minimum criteria before the 2nd snapshot.

This aligns with our thoughts as well. Use this Cycle 2 to acknowledge and lightly reward the use of NG, leave it open for future working groups to potentially weight it more heavily.

The first snapshot will be taken on September 1st; that’s when the final scoring data will be provided. We wanted to account for all forum activity in August. The 2nd Snapshot will be taken just prior to the 2nd payout, accounting for September-December. This gives delegates time to reach all of those requirements halfway through the cycle, but they won’t be rewarded until the 2nd payout.

The total budget will need to be increased by 140,000 SCR (covering the two extension months) for the delegate rewards portion; the new total budget for 8 months of GCR will be 580,000 SCR. For the additional WG compensation, we won’t include an increased budget request for the WG in this proposal, but we will need to work out a way for one member of the WG to work with gov council or re-elect the WG in time for the payout in early Jan. Most of the heavy work has been done for this cycle, we’d just need someone to collect data and post final scores.

@Seiryuu May be the best person to connect with here; we’ve tried to gather everyone’s rationale from NG, so it should already be counted under the Rationale score. Please message us if anyone thinks that we missed them.

3 Likes

Proposal edits, clarifications, and a call for endorsements

Gm everyone, thank you to all delegates who took the time to review!

Based on your feedback, we’ve updated the proposal with the following changes:

  • Cycle extension until December 31st (2 additional months), with the total budget adjusted to 580,000 SCR (70K SCR per month for delegate rewards); no increased budget for WG compensation
  • Verified Delegate status is determined at the end of each payout period (August 31st and December 31st). If you are not yet verified and you meet the criteria, please fill out the form today.
  • There will be two snapshots for the payouts. The first will be August 31st for the retro payment. The 2nd will be at the end of December just prior to the 2nd payout. This should give ample time for delegate accelerator participants or other Scroll delegates to get “Verified” status.
  • Aggregated Forum Score for teams using multiple forum accounts
  • Delegate Retention Rate added as a KPI for the second payout, as per @Curia’s suggestion
  • @pinkbrains and @daoplomats included in compensation for the first half, as they submitted their applications to become verified delegates

Note: Since the Forum Score provided by @curia includes August, we will only receive final scores on September 1st, after proposal submission. The compensation sheet will be updated accordingly. Delegates will have time to review scores until September 8th, but only in relation to the Forum Score component. No other adjustments will be possible once the proposal is submitted.

Please have a final look, and if the DAO is ready for a vote, we appreciate your endorsements.

6 Likes

Thank you so much to the GCR working group for all the hard work and these revisions to the proposal. I also personally appreciate that the Delegate Accelerator Program has been incorporated into the program details, as being one of the DAOs important programs to bringing on new and Scroll educated delegates to our governance.

Therefore, I’m thrilled to fully support and endorse this proposal as a verified delegate for the upcoming voting cycle!

1 Like