With this proposal we were aiming to keep it simple and tweak in the future based on feedback and how metrics respond to this.
I think for this version we should aim to draw in more delegates to stimulate activity tbh, limiting to the 15 seems to go counter to this.
And on the stablelab point - yes this was intended to mean them. It seems only fair that they don’t get paid twice for the same work, we’re keen to hear opinions on all of the above though.
Thank you for putting up this proposal.
We think it is fair Rari delegates get compensated as they have been committed to the DAO for a long time, delivering great expertise. We like the mechanism, rewarding those delegates with active delegation and proven track record of activity. Additionally, the periodic reports will also serve the community as a checkup of the state of governance every quarter.
Thank you for the feedback my friend. All seems clear.
I’m fully in support of this proposal. It presents a thoughtful and well-designed approach to one of the core challenges in DAO governance by establishing a clear incentive system that promotes consistent participation while prioritizing the quality of contributions over volume. I especially appreciate the emphasis on rewarding thoughtful engagement through rationale threads and meaningful forum activity rather than simply counting votes. Other DAOs like Arbitrum have successfully implemented delegate incentive programs, and the added focus here on elevating the standard of discourse through high-quality forum posts makes this initiative even more compelling.
I do support this proposal, it’s a “carrot” incentive and the motivation of helping active governance activities, will help all delegates to be rewarded to gain voting power and therefore, more alignment to the DAO and their delegate responsibilities.
I do have a clarification question about the 100 points for the Active delegate thread. The second to last sentence states that points for active delegate thread will only be distributed for Tally votes. Does that mean that points are only awarded for ADT if the delegate both voted for that proposal and added their voting rationale /comment thread to their ADT for that same proposal?
Thanks for putting together this proposal. This is a topic that’s been discussed for a while, and now that our delegates are a more mature group, it feels like the right time to get things moving.
I like that the reward criteria are clear and well thought out. Running this program for 3 months will provide valuable feedback to improve in the next quarter.
The only part I’m not fully aligned with is the retroactive reward system starting from January 1st. I’d suggest a fresh start in Q2 - a “fair launch.”
Also, as we’ve done with other strategies, it would be great to see a quick example of how the numbers might look by the end of Q1. Maybe using DAOplomats and two other delegates?
Hey guys GM
after reading this prop i have this questions:
| • | What mechanisms exist to adjust the budget if the program does not meet its objectives? | |
|---|---|---|
| • | How will the fluctuation in RARI’s price impact the program’s sustainability? | |
| • | How was the threshold of 2,000 veRARI delegated defined, and what impact will it have on the number of eligible participants? | |
| • | Why were these three criteria (onchain voting, active delegate thread, and proposal creation) chosen instead of other factors like participation in discussions or community education? | |
| • | Is there a mechanism to include new evaluation criteria if the community deems it necessary? |
As I’ve contributed to the draft, I generally support the proposal, hoping it will increase the number of delegates and participation in the DAO.
There’s a couple of points I would like to emphasize:
To limit the financial risk for the DAO, the payout needs to be approved via proposal every quarter, meaning with approving this proposal, in April we would publish a follow-up proposal with the $31,5k for the first quarter of this year. Upon establishing the program, we could change this to a longer timeframe, ensuring continuity for delegates.
With every quarter, DAOspace will prepare a report on the mentioned KPIs, so we can monitor whether the incentive program actually drives delegate activity.
Besides voting and being active in the forum, we’ve chosen passing proposals as a third factor and valuing it with the most points. This should ensure, that the DAO is rewarding initiative even more than (passive) participation.
@coffee-crusher Thanks for the feedback! We had a long discussion about how to measure forum activity. As we were trying to keep it simple, we decided in the end to just integrate the delegate thread, meaning for every tally vote, there should to be a voting rationale. I do think that technically counts independently, doesn’t really make sense to post a rationale without voting, though.
@Jaf About your suggestion to start with Q2. We thought it’s generally more straightforward, if we start with a full year, the rewards are retroactive in any case. The delegate thread can be completed until the end of the quarter. Happy to hear other thoughts on this, though.
@sohobiit Thanks for your questions. The quarterly approval should limit the risk for the budget and the price impact. Then is also time to rethink the evaluation criteria or adapt the program in general.
The three criteria were chosen after reviewing other delegate incentive programs and our general motto to keep it simple (analysing the quality of forum posts or interaction on social media is more challenging). DAOspace already had some ideas on that, though, that we could incorporate later.
The threshold of 2k RARI was defined to include a meaningful share of delegates (also the delegate program participants) while reflecting the necessary voting power. This is much less strict than in other DAOs, i.e. nearly all active delegates at the moment should be included there.
So your idea of increasing the number of active delegates is to limit the incentive to the delagates cohorts already active and presumably already received incentives?
Thanks for this proposal.
Briefly: I’m a self-funded delegate who locked my RARI for 2 years.
My motivation for locking RARI was due to my support and loyalty to Rarible coming from the spamart and trashart movements.
I’ve received zero incentives for my involvement and my participation has been minimal - but I’ve been watching and reading closely.
Why haven’t I been active?
minimal veRARI: at times it seemed pointless voting.
I plan to encourage other smaller holders to either be active or delegate.
Rari dao participation is spead out across several sites.
Also wallet log in would be simpler.
Life is busy - I forget.
Twitter has always been the life-blood of crypto. Being more active here, especially when a vote is due to close, may be helpful.
The main issue I see with this proposal is the retrospective application.
Already the first quarter is almost done which makes the motivation for the proposal redundant - $31,500 for nothing - no incentive at all. Run it for 3 quarters or begin the program from the 2nd quarter to let the incentive take effect.
I know I’ve had my RARI unlocked but still in contract since November but despite repeatedly asking, re: lock on RARI chain or ETH, I’ve received no definitive answer. So I guess I couldn’t particpate evenn if I wanted to. This is also another reason to not run the incentive program retrospectively - there are other potentially active delegates in this limbo right now.
None of the cohort delegates (besides Stable Labs) receive any incentives for their work 
This proposal is strongly supported by me due to its well-structured approach to enhancing DAO governance.
The implementation of a clear incentive system that prioritizes quality contributions over sheer volume is a significant step forward.
The emphasis on rewarding thoughtful engagement, particularly through rationale threads and meaningful forum activity, demonstrates a commitment to fostering a higher standard of discourse.
gm @CRYPTOCHILD! Thank you for commenting on this discussion, introducing yourself, and being a long-time supporter of RARI and Rarible! I’m Addie, the community lead, for RARI and you can always come to me for questions about the DAO and RARI. My telegram and discord handles are the same - @addigator.
Responding to a few of your points below in case the details are helpful, and would be happy to meet with you sometime to learn more about your background, start with RARI/Rarible, and ways to get more involved, or just have an intro chat. Note, I will not be commenting on the proposal since that was submitted by delegates.
This is great! Every vote counts. Also, the DAO is in the middle of an upgrade per RRC-30 and RRC-34 that have both been executed on Tally. These proposals cover dropping the veRARI model and simplifying the $RARI token experience (RRC-30), while enhancing the DAO via staking to improve governance participation (RRC-34). Let me know if you have any questions about these two proposals. There may be a few more proposals before the upgrade is complete and is live, particularly around staking incentives for delegators and delegates, so stay tuned!
The Foundation and DAO are actively working towards streamlining the RARI DAO experience for all token holders. Until all the upgrades mentioned above are complete and live, I will list the main sites to engage with for now, plus some other DAO resources.
Sites
Resources
Absolutely agree with you! Being more active on Twitter has been a focus on the Foundation for 2025.
Right now the only place to lock RARI is on ETH here: RARI Foundation. Do you remember where you have been asking? Apologies if anything was overlooked! I searched the Foundation community discord server and telegram, but didn’t see anything. Perhaps in twitter DMs or comments? You also have my direct contact info now, so please don’t hesitate to reach out with any other questions about RARI DAO!
Also, would still love to meet with you 1x1 for intros, so please reach out with some times that work for your schedule.
Thank you for sharing your feedback, comments, and insights. Look forward to collaborating more!
I do support how points can be gained by passing a proposal vs. just submitting a proposal on Discourse. This will incentivize the author(s) to submit proposals that align with the DAOs and Foundations goals, and not trying to gain the system of just submitting proposal for the purpose of points farming.
I genuinely appreciate how this proposal keeps it simple on earning points, while at the same time, starting the monitoring of rewards from Q1, is a good starting point.
With it starting retroactively, you’ll get a good baseline of delegates who have been active during this period without any incentives, and also meets your KPI of mapping your number of active voters, governance discussions and proposals, which should increase in Q2, and going forward.
Thanks, @bitblondy, that makes total sense. I really like the simplicity of this proposal, and also, I didn’t catch it when I first read it (and you mentioned it in your comments below) that this is a quarterly renewal-able proposal.
I think this is great way do it, since it allows the team to adjust the proposal if something is not working as intended, and at the same time, it reduces the risk to the treasury with a quarterly approach.
Thanks @coffee-crusher for your positive feedback. The downside is the shorter continuity for delegates, but for the first quarters we should have the option to reiterate on the process if necessary.
@CRYPTOCHILD Thanks for your comment. Yes, for the first (retroactive) quarter, the draft favours delegates that have already been active without incentives. While this does not have an effect on previous engagement, as @coffee-crusher mentiones, it provides a baseline to measure the effects in the coming quarters. Open to hearing more thoughts on this.
GM everyone, thank you for all the positive feedback on the proposal. I think we have had sufficient time to discuss and digest this proposal, and we will be working on getting it published on the RARI DAO Tally this week.
Just a couple of reminders:
The first version of this proposal will have no cost, and will simply act as a signaling mechanism and ratification for the first year of Delegate Incentives (distributed quarterly).
Any interested delegates should create their voting rationale threads by the end of this quarter (March 31st, 2025), to be eligible for Q1 incentives. Examples of Delegate Threads → (DAOplomats Delegate Thread, StableLab Delegate Thread)
This looks great, @Sixty and I’m looking forward to it going up on Tally. Thanks also for the reminder with the deadline for creating a delegate thread.
This vote is now live on Tally for voting!
Voting ends Monday, 31st March 2025, at 11:52 AM UTC.
I’ve been watching RARI from the outside for a while and have been interested in becoming more active in the governance and community (and I’m finally doing so yay). I support this proposal since it creates a strong incentive for people like me to start participating actively.
That said, as others have mentioned in previous comments, this should be open to any applicant rather than being retroactive. Opening it up would encourage new people to engage with RARI Governance. I understand that this may seem unfair to those who have already contributed in previous months, but perhaps they could receive an extra incentive (like X amount of points for being active before the program started). That way, we can reward past contributors while also encouraging new participation.