Proposal: Governance Contribution Recognition (Cycle 2)

General
1

This post is intended to share a proposed framework for categorizing governance participation and distributing rewards accordingly. The objective is to keep the first iteration simple, transparent, and easy to verify, while creating a baseline that can evolve as governance activity increases and clearer standards are defined.

The framework below is shared for open discussion and feedback, particularly around fairness, incentives, and long-term sustainability.

Proposed Criteria

  • Tier 4: Voted in one proposal

  • Tier 3: Voted in at least two proposals

  • Tier 2: Voted in all proposals

  • Tier 1: Voted in all proposals and submitted a rationale for each vote

Note: As there is currently no standardized rubric for evaluating rationales, this model does not assess quality. A rationale was counted as valid if it was posted either on the forum or directly within the voting interface.

Explanation of the Distribution Formula

The total reward pool was distributed proportionally based on performance weights assigned to each tier:

  • Tier 1: 100%

  • Tier 2: 85%

  • Tier 3: 60%

  • Tier 4: 30%

Each tier’s weight was multiplied by the number of voters in that group to calculate total weighted units. The reward pool was then divided by the sum of all weighted units to determine the value of one full-performance unit (100%). Individual rewards were calculated by multiplying this base value by each tier’s assigned weight.

Minor cent-level adjustments were applied to the highest-performance tier to ensure the total distributed amount matched the pool exactly.

Reward Distribution Spreadsheet

The spreadsheet can be seen here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aIYPEHz_DhCWtGRSQ1xmCtEiyJxkK1JJhgHbboWqcyU/edit?gid=700393490#gid=700393490

Dune Script

For auditing, the script used is:

WITH votes AS (
    SELECT 
        evt_tx_hash,
        evt_block_date,
        proposalId,
        reason,
       {{unnamed_parameter}} support,
        vote_type,
        voter,
        votingPower
    FROM query_5553688
),
proposals AS (
    SELECT 
      evt_tx_hash,
      evt_block_number,
      proposer,
      proposalId,
      votingModule,
      start_time,
      start_date,
      end_time,
      end_date,
      proposal_title,
      proposal_type
    FROM query_5617498
    WHERE start_time >= TIMESTAMP '2025-10-20 00:00:00'
),
voter_proposals AS (
    SELECT 
        v.voter,
        v.proposalId,
        p.proposal_title,
        v.vote_type,
        v.votingPower
    FROM votes v
    INNER JOIN proposals p ON v.proposalId = p.proposalId
    WHERE v.votingPower > 2500
),
voter_names AS (
    SELECT 
        voter,
        array_agg(DISTINCT proposalId ORDER BY proposalId) AS proposals_voted_on,
        array_agg(proposal_title ORDER BY proposalId) AS proposal_titles,
        array_agg(vote_type ORDER BY proposalId) AS vote_types,
        array_agg(votingPower ORDER BY proposalId) AS voting_powers,
        COUNT(DISTINCT proposalId) AS num_proposals_voted
    FROM voter_proposals
    GROUP BY voter
)
SELECT 
    vn.voter,
    COALESCE(ens.name, CAST(vn.voter AS VARCHAR)) AS voter_name,
    vn.proposals_voted_on,
    vn.proposal_titles,
    vn.vote_types,
    vn.voting_powers,
    vn.num_proposals_voted
FROM voter_names vn
LEFT JOIN labels.ens ON vn.voter = labels.ens.address
ORDER BY vn.num_proposals_voted DESC, vn.voter
13 Likes
Operations Committee – Ongoing Updates
2

Supportive. The tier structure is clean and verifiable.

Counting rationales by existence rather than quality avoids the overhead and subjectivity of trying to judge what makes a “good” rationale.

2 Likes
3

I support this measurement for engagement.

It’s very basic, fair and and transparent that validates the reasoning why each delegate will be identified in Tiers 1-4. Thanks for posting this.

4

@EthereumTGU , thank you so much for this report (noticed it also after my prior comments).

I do have a question about my contribution recognition, since the report did not capture all my voting records and none of my rationales.

Per the report for my delegate address: 0x807ba79318d374741884e9c283da196fde6f34fc
it states that I only voted 2 times (with the Dune report start time of 2025-10-20) and with no rationales.

However, I voted three times, here’s my Agora profile with my voting record: 0x80...34FC on Agora

And here are my 3 rationales that I posted after voting:

Thanks!

1 Like
5

Thanks for pointing it out! Just fixed the sheet

1 Like
6

Awesome, thank you so much for the correction! :folded_hands:

7

Gm @EthereumTGU, 3 of Axia’s rationales are not recorded in the sheet. This is because Axia Network was previously 404Gov. Please reference 404Gov’s delegate thread for rationale inclusion. Thank you.

2 Likes
8

Thanks @EthereumTGU (and I guess the rest of the Operations Committee) for putting this together. :folded_hands:

I really appreciate the effort to make the tiering system simple and transparent. I agree with @Sov that starting with something this clean and verifiable makes sense, and I can see how using rationales as a signal for added effort is a solid proxy in absence of more complex evaluation.

That said, I’d like to offer one reflection: as already stated, not all rationales are equal in terms of contribution quality, and sometimes not writing one may actually reflect thoughtful restraint.

For example, in my case, I voted in all proposals… but I didn’t post rationales for two: one was a technical upgrade outside my domain (Galileo), and the other (Auto-Abstain extension) had been thoroughly discussed and had no real contention.

Meanwhile, for the Governance Framework Update proposal, I participated in deep design work: shared frameworks, hosted calls, posted threads, opened community polls, and helped shape the conversation in different meetings.

Under the current system, all of that gets less weight than someone who simply pasted a few-words rationale in each vote.

I’m not suggesting we introduce subjective assessments of rationale “quality". Again, I agree that’s a rabbit hole. But maybe we could add a complementary signal that reflects broader contribution… like a basic forum activity score (e.g. likes received across posts during a vote cycle) or the number of comments a delegate made in proposal threads.

Even a simple multiplier (e.g. +10% for crossing a threshold) could add nuance to the tiering without complicating the core logic.

This isn’t about perfect fairness… just a reminder that governance contributions often extend beyond the vote interface. :badminton:

Participation gives us legitimacy, but reasoned deliberation from a high context is what elevates the quality of our decisions. A small nudge in that direction could go a long way. :sparkles:

5 Likes
9

We support the proposal to calculate the GCR for this cycle using a simpler and more pragmatic approach.

Given the lower level of DAO activity during this period, we believe this methodology is reasonable and proportionate. It helps ensure continuity, reduces unnecessary complexity, and keeps the GCR process aligned with the current reality of participation.

At the same time, we appreciate that this is framed as a cycle-specific decision, while broader improvements to the GCR framework can continue to be discussed and refined over time.

Overall, we support this approach for Cycle 2 and see it as a constructive step to keep governance processes moving forward.

1 Like
10

Got it! was missing the last one which is under Axia thread

3 Likes
11

We agree, also for this Cycle the intention was to keep it simple, but before measuring quality, we need to define a set of guidelines of what constitutes a good rationale.

1 Like
12

Having looked through, I do understand we want something simple so we can be done with that chapter. I am sure going forward, there will be better criteria to say what works best.

1 Like
13

We support this framework for the current cycle, as keeping the scope simple—by counting only voting activity and rationales—is a reasonable way to measure contribution during a phase when DAO activity has slowed.

That said, we agree with Alex’s point that governance participation should be captured more broadly, beyond just onchain votes.

Our suggestion for the next cycle is to explore the use of complementary signals, such as a forum score, likes received, etc. So that contribution from discussion is also reflected. We have already built several tools to support this and would be happy to explore how it could be used. This would help Scroll capture a more complete picture of delegate’s governance activity.

2 Likes
14

Alex raises some good questions but for now I understand the need for simplicity to kick this off.

1 Like
15

We agree with the proposal for this cycle. We believe it is logical that, at this stage, the method for calculating recognition of contributions to governance should be simple, clear, and concise. We also believe that, over time and as it grows, this method can become more complex and detailed.
We thank you for the time and effort you have put into putting together and calculating this cycle.

1 Like
16

@EthereumTGU , thank you very much for this report, I wanted to bring to your notice that my rationale was not recorded and I posted it here

17

Hey @EthereumTGU, the framework outlined in your post is very easy to understand, and provides predictability for delegates looking to participate meaningfully in Scroll’s Governance.

I would suggest that we permanently move to sharing rationales on the proposal’s comments (which can then be linked to on the voting interface) to avoid having an overwhelming amount of posts dedicated to delegate threads and their rationales (this creates a lot of clutter on the forum).

The decision to keep accounting of rationales objective, rather than subjective, is also wise, as this will greatly reduce operational overhead. On another note, what is the minimum voting power required to be considered for rewards?

1 Like