Strongly believe this proposal is not ready to go to vote as it might risk to exclude a huge number of delegates from receiving incentives. What worries me about it as well is the fact that all the proposal submitters are in the top 15 delegates which could be seen as a bad signal by other delegates because
-of the information asymmetry involved, the delegates that worked on it are all in the top 15, this could very likely be because they have participated in governance with high frequency, but one could say they have created criteria that benefits them more than others that might give them a higher score.
-this proposal could risk cutting off 50% of delegates, most will never come back.
-we have the DAO Delegate accelerator program in place, delegates that may be removed from GCR might quit that program as well
My advice is to adjusts scoring to enable more delegates to be retroactively rewarded for their governance contributions without allowing low quality scores to be rewarded.
Sorry, but I do not believe this is a solid argument, weâre mostly playing around with these values in governance and it a program does A we should not assume they know what they are doing and do A+x
PS. As @antoine noted above summer is not the best period for governance participation overall.
I propose we should wait to have the forum data before moving the proposal forward.
@kevinknielsen For delegates who are consistently participating in Proposal Bonanzas, how is that counted, as itâs somewhere between the writing of a rationale and the attendance of a call.
@connormcmk Proposal Bonanzas werenât counted in the current criteria for the first payout (Negation Game + Harmonica filled that âextra activitiesâ role). Itâs a good idea to include them for the 2nd payout; they could be counted in the âcommunity callsâ section. If you donât already keep track of attendance, it would be a good idea to start tracking that from September onwards
Thanks again everyone for the new comments on this thread; weâve addressed comments and private messages and this final set of data should be fully up to date.
View the final spreadsheet (including the Forum Score) here.
View Curiaâs Forum Score spreadsheet separately here. Note: The methodology document (including details on the configuration, excluded users like those within the âteamâ group on Discourse, proposal authors, and delegate teams) can be found here.
Financial
70,000 SCR will be allocated to the four tiers per month. We set Tier 4 at 60% of the compensation of Tier 1, and retrofitted the remaining tiers based on the number of delegates per tier and the 70K SCR/mo total payout.
Total: 70,000 SCR
Tier 1 - 5 delegates
3,656 SCR/mo each
18,280 SCR/mo total for this tier
Tier 2 - 5 delegates
3,107 SCR/mo each (85% the compensation of tier 1)
15,535 SCR/mo total for this tier
Tier 3 - 2 delegates
2,741.5 SCR/mo each (75% the compensation of tier 1)
5,483 SCR/mo total for this tier
Tier 4 - 14 delegates
2,193 SCR/mo each (60% the compensation of tier 1)
30,702 SCR/mo total for this tier
As a reminder, for the Forum Score component only, delegates have time to review until September 8th. Please reach out if anyone has questions.
Itâs great to see the final GCR data and tier breakdown published for the community. We want to thank the working group for the collaboration in getting this finalized and presented so clearly.
Now that these numbers are public, we wanted to provide some higher-level context and offer a some suggestion for future cycles that is informed by this data.
As the breakdown shows, the current reward structure results in a linear progression:
Tier 2: ~15% lower than Tier 1
Tier 3: ~25% lower than Tier 1
Tier 4: ~40% lower than Tier 1
This model is a practical starting point, designed to fit the delegate distribution into a fixed monthly budget. However, our analysis, both of delegate effort and of best practices across the ecosystem, suggests that the commitment required to climb these tiers is not linear at all. The jump to Tier 1 represents an exponential increase in dedication and impact that we believe should be more distinctly rewarded.
To truly achieve the proposalâs goal to âprofessionalize the delegate roleâ and âdistinguish the quality of contribution,â the incentive structure must reflect this reality.
Based on this data, we strongly recommend evolving our model for future GCR cycles. We should move from retrofitting a distribution into a budget, to a model where we first define the reward gaps based on the principle of rewarding exceptional effort.
For example, models used by DAOs like Velora and Arbitrum feature much wider gaps, where lower tiers might receive around 40% of the top tierâs compensation.
(DIP v1.6) ArbitrumGaps: (calculated using the maximum compensation for each tier):
Tier 2: ~27% lower than Tier 1 (comparing Tier 2âs $5,100 against Tier 1âs $7,000)
Tier 3: ~53% lower than Tier 1 (comparing Tier 3âs $3,250 against Tier 1âs $7,000)
We believed that adopting a similar philosophy would:
Properly Reward Excellence: Truly acknowledge the exceptional work of top-tier delegates.
Create a Powerful Aspirational Path: Make climbing the tiers a more compelling and meaningful goal for all participants.
We see the current cycle as a successful foundation. The next logical step is to refine the incentive mechanism to be an even more powerful driver of high-quality participation.
We are excited to continue supporting the GCR program and look forward to helping shape a more dynamic structure for the next cycle.
@kevinknielsen
I would be curious about understanding the rounding here. My specific case (jensei.eth) seems to be right in between of the Tier 3 and 4.
@jensei The tiers were meant to encompass the entire range from e.g. 60-69.99 (repeating); the next tier has a hard start at 70%. Apologies if that wasnât clear in the proposal body. Youâre grouped in tier 4.
We appreciate the continuation of the Governance Contribution Recognition (GCR) program and agree that recognizing active participants is vital for a healthy governance culture. However, just to be clear about this;
For new delegates entering Scrollâs governance who lack an extensive voting history or forum activity, could the working group implement a system within this proposal to provide recognition for contributions made between the period they joined as delegates and December 31st? Alternatively, does the working group believe these new delegatesâ contributions would be more appropriately recognized in Cycle 3?
Yes, in part, thatâs one of the reasons that we split the payout period in two (May - August and September - December). Those are two separate periods where the criteria will be calculated for each delegate. New delegates joining within the next four months have time to meet the minimum criteria, build a voting history, post rationale, etc. If a new delegate, for example, votes on 100% of the proposals in September-December, they will get 100% on Voting Participation for the 2nd payout.
I should have suggested this earlier, but a way to address this could be:
Delegates who joined after May would have their votes/reasonings counted from the day they effectively received their first delegation. For example, if a delegate started in June, and there were eight votes since then to the cut date. If he participated in all of them and provided reasoning, that would count as 100%.
Then, a multiplier would be added to differentiate between delegates who have contributed since the beginning of the period (May), so their contributions are rewarded differently.
Multiplier
May - 1
Jun - 0.9
Jul - 0.8
Aug - 0.7
That would recognise that the delegate is actively contributing since he joined the DAO, while giving more weight to those who were here before.
Encouraging delegates at this moment in governance is great for maintaining voting quorums and, therefore, the economic security of the DAO. A next step is to work not only to have delegates in the DAO, but also to develop a program to attract new delegations of tokens that have not yet been delegated.
We are working on this front on ENS DAO, and it is a fundamental part of DAO security.
It says I missed multiple rationales that I actually gave. E.g. Feyman, I explained my position and asked for clarification, when that clarification was given I responded that Iâm happy to endorse the proposal.
Thatâs a very clear and unambiguous show of rationale. Letâs not turn Scroll DAO into a tickboxing exercise where the only thing valued is filling forms correctly instead of doing work that clearly fits the bill i.e. providing a clear posture and rationale and then explicitly saying I endorse the proposal. Whatâs the point of me repeating myself after?
If we take the full bureaucracy approach weâre going to disincentivise valuable contributions from busy delegates in favour of bureaucrats who do box ticking.
I sepnt a lot of time working with the proposers to fully articulate how I would vote and why. And then Iâm being penalised by not âfilling the formâ in a way thatâs decided after the fact? Please review the proposals where Iâm marked as not having proposed a rationale and youâll see I had already done so.
Equally, I did participate in the CC3 and even informally advised on its design.
Today, September 8th, marks the cutoff date for delegates to review their scores. Five delegates (@ZER8, @danielo, @mexi, @404Gov, and @ethargentina) informed us of a correction to their rationale rate and this correction bumped them from Tier 4 to Tier 3 and one to Tier 2. The total compensation per tier was slightly edited to accomodate this change.
Total: 70,000 SCR
Tier 1 - 5 delegates
3,500 SCR/mo each
17,500 SCR/mo total for this tier
Tier 2 - 6 delegates
2,975 SCR/mo each (85% the compensation of tier 1)
17,850 SCR/mo total for this tier
Tier 3 - 6 delegates
2,625 SCR/mo each (75% the compensation of tier 1)
15,750 SCR/mo total for this tier
Tier 4 - 9 delegates
2,100 SCR/mo each (60% the compensation of tier 1)
Reviewing the data provided, we saw that in our case it appears that we did not justify our votes, when this is incorrect, since in the voting we clarified the reason why we voted and justified our decision. We would like this to be reviewed so that we are at the correct level of delegates.
Thank you the updated GCR proposal, we are Scroll verified delegate with sufficient voting power and we endorse this proposal to be part of the upcoming voting cycle
(there was a problem with my forum account so this comment went out now , apologies.)
