Q3 2025 Delegate Incentive Program Report

[sohobiit]

RM!

I think that to prevent this from happening, there should be more transparency and a table of who is actually compliant, because otherwise it becomes ambiguous. How long has it been counted? Does each delegate have time to post their thread as soon as possible? It becomes a rather unhealthy type of competition, and I think what we’re trying to foster is durability on the part of the delegates, but also exponential growth.

Thanks @coffee-crusher for the observation you made. It’s very good, and I agree with what @Jaf says. I find the part about people who have been building for years and with good reason discouraging.

Far from pointing fingers, it’s about growing as a group and decentralizing, not emptying a DAO and then leaving (for example). I love what RARI does and what’s been built around it. Let’s continue creating good things from those of us who are inside.

In my case @jarisjames I’d like to know why I wasn’t included in the Q3 delegate table.

[jarisjames]

@sohobiit, the Delegate Incentive Program is now in its third consecutive quarter. The amended eligibility rules were clearly outlined in RRC-47, a proposal that you voted for. Those rules specify that delegates must post a rationale for each proposal they vote on within the quarter to qualify for the program.

There were eight proposals in Q3. You voted on five and posted four rationales, breaking the 1:1 vote-to-rationale ratio. You forgot to post a rationale for RRC-52.

Since the program is structured quarterly, delegates have until the close of the quarter to post their rationales, though it’s always best practice to post them shortly after each vote.

As for transparency, the report itself is the table of every delegate who qualified, with each participant’s wallet address, votes, and forum rationales fully hyperlinked for public verification. There’s no ambiguity, all the data is verifiable onchain and on the forum.

The program is not a competition. Every delegate can earn up to 1,500 RARI, independent of anyone else’s results. The cap and fixed-per-activity model were introduced in Q2 after DAO feedback and approved unanimously.

The purpose here isn’t to pit delegates against each other, it’s to maintain clear, consistent standards that apply equally to all delegates. The expectation has always been simple: vote, post a rationale to justify your vote, and do so within the quarter. By Q3, all active delegates should be familiar with how this works.

[WinVerse]

Hey gm @jarisjames

Thanks for putting this together as always.

Quick one though, you might want to adjust the report to accommodate just the 7 proposals that were active in Q3. From this on Tally, we can see the Security council prop voting period ended October 4, that’s Q4, so it shouldn’t be counted with the Q3 props.

In all the communities I am a part of, this analysis is always done using the timeline of vote end and not start;

@jarisjames

whose voting periods occurred between July 1st and September 30th

and as you rightfully said, review should cover props within this period. The period for the SC prop is Sep 29 - Oct 4.

---

Edit: adding to the general discussion here…

As a growing community, we don’t want to disincentivize governance participation with these sorts of stringent rules. I understand the 1:1 relationship you mention Jaris, but folks who vote on 8 props but give rationales on 7 shouldn’t be completely excluded for incentives.

Also, speaking on the grace period, the same thing applies; we shouldn’t disincentivize gov participation. I would suggest the original proposal is modified to accommodate rationales at least a week after each quarter, as this would leave room for proposals whose voting period concludes very close to each quarter’s end. If the report for a quarter is coming almost two weeks after the end of the quarter, it only makes sense to allow for these sorts of discrepancies.

[jarisjames]

@WinVerse

In all the communities I am a part of, this analysis is always done using the timeline of vote end and not start;

@WinVerse could you please clarify which specific “other communities” you’re referring to that use vote-end dates instead of start dates to define quarterly scope? Also can you provide the relevent governance documentation here to serve as evidence? It’s important that such statements are backed with verifiable governance frameworks, not vague claims, expecting us to just take your word for it.

Regarding compliance, DAOplomats did not post a rationale for the Grow3dge Accelerator a proposal that they voted on, which closed on August 3rd, nearly two months before the end of Q3. They also didn’t post a rationale for RRC-52 on (RARI Chain) until two days ago, a full week after the proposal closed on October 3rd at 8:15 PM EST, which already functioned as a natural grace period. So even if we did remove RRC-52 from the Q3 report, DAOplomats will still not be eligible for rewards since you would still be missing a rationale for that vote as well.

Removing RRC-52, as you suggest, would also penalize @coffee-crusher, the proposal author who drafted and deployed it on-chain during Q3 and whose author points are tied to that period. Most delegates voted and posted rationales for it before September 30, all within Q3. Your suggestion would benefit a delegate team who missed the deadline while unfairly removing credit from one who met every rule and contributed on time.

This is exactly why the rationale-per-vote rule exists, it prevents delegates from retroactively batching posts after results are known, which already resulted in a delegate providing a rationale for a proposal they did not vote on, since they submitted all of their ratioanles on the last day of the quarter, as you’re suggesting. Check the “Accountability Note” in the report above. This can easily lead to governance malpractice as delegates may not accurately correlate their rationales with proposals they actually voted for within the quarter if they submit them all last minute. This is not the type of action we should be pushing for. By Q3 we should be following a standard and setting an example of responsible governance participation that follows a natural cadence, not a checkbox activity completed after the quarter closes to collect a stpiend.

The eligibility rules you’re referencing were clearly established in RRC-47, a proposal that you voted for and was approved unanimously by the DAO. Besides, Q1 included a grace period of one week to allow delegates to get adjusted to the program, but by Q3, all active delegates should already be aligned with posting a rationale before the end of the quarter.

Lastly, the report went through Foundation review before publication, since Q3 payments are being distributed directly by the Foundation rather than the DAO treasury. That review ensures accuracy, and accountability, which is why it was finalized after verification rather than rushed out prematurely.

The standard remains simple: vote, post a rationale for each vote you make, and do so within the quarter. That’s not punitive, it’s professional governance.

[sohobiit]

RM Jaris

Yes, I’m aware that I voted for proposal RRC-47, and I fully understand the spirit of the proposal to maintain clearer and more accountable processes within the program, which is why it was one of the points I voted for. For me, it’s always about building with purpose, transparency, and respect, and continuing to strengthen the ecosystem that has generated so much value around RARI.

I think part of having a delegate program is also iterating processes. For example, in my case, I’ve been getting involved by attending many of the Si3 program calls (which has been sponsored by RARI). In fact, on one occasion, I ran into Ana there, and they introduced me as a RARI Delegate. So, those little things that help us amplify RARI also need to be taken into account. I think RARI’s exposure and raising the voice of RARI, as well as the delegates, should be taken into account.
We need to go beyond simple votes if we’re looking to attract both people who consume and people who build. I’ll leave this for the other delegates’ consideration, as these are issues that concern us all. I know that for now there is a proposal as such, but still, nothing is set in stone and everything is subject to change and improvement.

Similarly, between V1 and V2 of RARI voting, there have been some gaps in voting. In my case, I have two RRCs with the same number, but they belong to different initiatives. Now that the full migration is complete, it should be much easier for everyone.

I appreciate the work of those who maintain the program’s oversight and structure; without a doubt, each learning experience helps us continue to grow as RARI FAM in a stronger and more coherent way.

I believe these spaces for dialogue are very valuable precisely because they allow us to refine processes and foster a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement, rather than competition, although it may sometimes seem that way. In my opinion.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain this in detail. See you here to continue creating fantastic things together. We’re all part of the RARI ecosystem.

[WinVerse]

hey hey Jaris

@jarisjames

Also can you provide the relevent governance documentation here to serve as evidence? It’s important that such statements are backed with verifiable governance frameworks, not vague claims, expecting us to just take your word for it.

Let’s look at Arbitrum

Check this out. For their March results, they didn’t consider a vote that commenced in March but finished in April as we can see below; same in several other months.

Look at the bottom right in the second image.

And to your penalizing Coffee point, those author points would definitely be given when Q4 calaculations are done as the prop vote wasn’t concluded in Q3;

@jarisjames

Your suggestion would benefit a delegate team who missed the deadline while unfairly removing credit from one who met every rule and contributed on time.

so please this is not true.

@jarisjames

Lastly, the report went through Foundation review before publication, since Q3 payments are being distributed directly by the Foundation rather than the DAO treasury.

And finally on this, this FDN review further buttresses my point on why that one week buffer makes the most sense.

So please, I still suggest you adjust the calculations to fit the actual 7 proposals that were completed in Q3 instead. For the other topics here, they can be discussed during our gov calls.

[coffee-crusher]

@WinVerse , as you and I both know, using a the very broken Arbitrum DAO DIP program as an example is very misleading and ingenious, since their multiple DIP’s have had major problems and numerous issues during this past year, including an increasingly number of disputes from delegates fighting for their own points in the ARB DIP.

Since you are a professional delegate and have experience in several DAOs as you note in your delegate thread, you understand that being a delegate requires doing the work. And your own voting record and qualifications for the Delegate Incentive Program would still disqualify you for the Q3 report, as you never posted a rationale for the Grow3dge Accelerator: Strategic Support for Rari Foundation and DAO Growth proposal, even though you voted on it.

What’s concerning for myself and all other token holders, is that some RARI delegates are fighting for rewarding their own pockets, rather than having this much passion about other proposals that enhance, protect the treasury and build this DAO. There is only two delegates that I have to give credit to, who have consistently done this; @dzonson.eth and @bitblondy who have always brought objections and questioned the status quo on protecting the DAO. All this fighting for lining your own pockets is unbecoming and against the ethos of why delegators have empowered you with their voting power. As I said before, RRC-47 is very clear on the criteria requirements and the requirements. It requires a fairly low barrier to participant in the program and earn rewards. If you don’t do the work, then you don’t get rewarded.

[WinVerse]

Hey hey Coffee

@coffee-crusher

using a the very broken Arbitrum DAO DIP program as an example is very misleading and ingenious, since their multiple DIP’s have had major problems and numerous issues during this past year, including an increasingly number of disputes from delegates fighting for their own points in the ARB DIP.

Nothing you mention here is connected to what I am talking about. And as we both know, voting period has never been an issue in Arbitrum.

@coffee-crusher

And your own voting record and qualifications for the Delegate Incentive Program would still disqualify you for the Q3 report

Once again, like I said during today’s gov call, my point has nothing to do with DAOplomats qualifying —because the Grow3dge prop still disqualifies us — and it is seriously concerning you think this way.

Anyways, like @jarisjames mentioned in today’s call, RRC-52 is an edge case, so if, as the program manager, he decides to leave it this way rather than follow the usual order of things, it is totally fine. I just provided the evidence he requested so he becomes aware of how it is done at other places.