[RRC-XX] Replacement Delegate Incentive Program for Q1 2025 and Beyond

Proposals Parent DAO Proposals
#13

Sorry I’ve been quiet recently, as balancing work as an artist in East Africa while doing governance work, has been quite the challenge. I care deeply about our ecosystem and this proposal offers some solid improvements to RRC 40 that will help to incentivize and reward the work of delegates, so I felt the need to speak up in this discussion.

I fully support Jaris’ work, and the suggestion to move from DAO voting to a trusted multisig method of payment for more convenience, during this transitional period. Being considerate of the unique situation the DAO is in right now, with migration and voting power decay, I think is the best way to move forward.

3 Likes
#14

I appreciate your thoughtfulness @jarisjames on this replacement proposal, which builds upon RRC-40 but provides clarification for missing structurally integrity for this program to function correctly in a fair and transparent manner for a mid-term length program (1 yr) with benefits of active governance, and well as it expands for additional delegates to be eligible for the program.

The reason why I voted on, and therefore supported RRC-40 (and RRC-42) was due to the intent of this program - to provide stability in the DAO to create a more diverse voting power pool, and to ensure that governance can continue beyond the few delegates with Tally proposal submission power.

Therefore, this proposal addresses this initial intent of RRC-40, and also clarifies for me the desire to not have a requirement of the DAO to vote on each quarter, and instead have payment allocated for rewards from a multi-sig. The allocation of rewards for points earned for posting a recurring program payment (that is already approved by the DAO) on Tally, is redundant in both points earned and adds complexity to the program. On-going rewards payment from a multi-sig follows similar practices at larger protocol DAO DIP programs, including Arbitrum and Uniswap.

I support the idea of a creation of a multi-sig for this program, as suggested by @Jose_StableLab , but I would suggest using the combination of some of the members of the Security Council (that StableLab is a part of) and daospace (DIP admin) in a 3/5 multi-sig.

In addition, I would suggest adding a 4 day window for DAO disputes/resolutions to the posted Quarterly rewards report, such as the Arbitrum DIP program has included, that allows for the community to dispute the report, as submitted by the program Admin, or for identifying any missing rewards. This should address prior comments regarding providing the DAO the flexibility to the program, and to address the (viable) concerns regarding of new delegates (or self-delegation) with expanded power from the upcoming Staking proposal or the LaunchPad IV program, that could stall the programs continuance for each of the 4 quarters, that has already been approved by the DAO in RRC-40.

Finally, I support this proposal for the increased program administration of $1K per month and the continued program administration by daospace (as voted on by the DAO in RRC-40). In addition, I would also ask for daospace include in this proposal, a detailed list of all tasks and responsibilities (some are already noted above in early comments) that provides details for the justification of admin costs. This is similar to how the Arbitrum DIP program is structured.

However, I don’t support the concerns that this is a “plug and play” quarterly template that does not require expanded work after the 1st Quarter, as I view the program admin as being responsible for the quality and correctness of the report and the distribution of reward funds. This in addition to being solely responsible for disputes or conflicts of incorrect distributions or even the right to expel delegates from participation in the DIP program who attempt to game or exploit the program or if the delegate does not meet any of the program requirements to be considered eligible.

5 Likes
#15

And to address some the heated commentary posted here. In the best interest of moving any of the proposals forward on Forum (or if necessary, stopping something not aligned to the DAO), all of the delegates need to find a way that addresses responding in a professional and respectful manner to each other and the community that we represent.

5 Likes
#16

Adding some comments on your statements @jarisjames, that — respectfully — I don’t agree with.

The payouts did not fail. Even if they had not reached quorum, that’s unrelated to the initial incentives prop RRC-40. A missed quorum means that you just repost later. A defeated prop means that you reiterate. Please don’t suggest misinformation like that!

To make this clear, I opted for a grace period. The benefit of not having one would have been, that the payouts had happened earlier to the delegates that actually submitted on time.
More importantly, there would have been more voting power left, so we wouldn’t have this discussion, making your accusations even more bizarre.

You know how accepting a job works, right? You can do an Excel sheet with twelve rows. The additional automation work is on you.

I don’t remember having a conversation about this, would have been fine either way. The proposal was a lot of work, after all. And as you’re pointed out, you were the one “hardcoding” this.

My understanding is, that you’re at DAOspace together with @Sixty, who was a co-author. Accordingly, DAOspace was closely involved in the design. You guys figured this approach out by yourself to avoid conflict of interest. Please do not take your personal issues out on the DAO.

Generally, if you have improvements for the process, that’s great. Posting replacement-proposal and calling previous work a “complete fail” it not it. Let’s have a respectful conversation about that.

1 Like
#17

The only valid improvement suggestion in your counter-proposal is the quarterly rhythm.

Pointing out, that the quarterly approvals were favoured and even requested for the first few quarters by the majority of delegates, until the program is established. I agree with @Sixty that it should not be a problem for a DAO to execute that.

As @Jose_StableLab pointed out: If you were to suggest a multi-sig with yearly approvals instead, then give the proposal some more information. You will need to add who should be on the multi-sig, how you handle price changes, and how much you’d allocate towards that. @coffee-crusher has delivered some good input on that.

1 Like
#18

Read the room, @bitblondy

Multiple delegates have already expressed support for removing quarterly quorum requirements, because it’s unnecessary friction. @coffee-crusher even asked that we keep the discussion respectful, yet both you and @Sixty continue addressing me with sarcasm and talking down to me in a condescending way.

Saying “you know how accepting a job works” is deeply unprofessional. It shows you can’t separate feedback on governance systems from personal ego. That’s not how responsible system designers operate. That’s how central planners operate.

Let’s clarify: I’m the founder of daospace, the product this program was built on. Sixty oversold his background, and only got involved because he pitched himself as a Product Manager after helping me get a grant last year. He was never a developer, and frankly, not essential. I gave him a shot. He burned that trust, and is no longer a member of the daospace team, which currently consists of me, and two designers.

The truth is, the payout structure was created by the authors listed on RRC-40, not by “daospace” or me. And it failed. Not the people. Not the idea. The system. No other initiative in the DAO requires a full vote just to release funds already earned. This was a design flaw that undermined the entire program.

And it’s not just my view that the program had flaws:

→ “I did not fully consider the downside of setting it up this way.”
→ “I do see support for changing it to the spot price, since tbh no one is going to be happy with this.”

→ “There is nothing I want more than all the other delegates to weigh in… because using the forum will take forever.”

That’s not how governance works. You don’t fast-track decisions to avoid transparent community input.

This proposal replaces RRC-40 entirely. So the admin fee set by @Cr1st0f is irrelevant now. Sixty shared screenshots where Cr1st0f stated clearly: if daospace doesn’t accept $500/month, he won’t be associated, or support the program. It was a take-it-or-leave-it offer. I went along with it then, for the DAO’s sake. But I’m not doing that again.

This is why I’m proposing a cleaner, scalable, and fairer version. Because the DAO deserves better than a spreadsheet hidden in backchannels. It deserves transparency, autonomy, and a system designed with actual contributors in mind; not gatekept by a trio who takes every critique personally.

#19

I would like to request that @Jose_StableLab and @Matt_StableLab in their role as providing professional DAO services for the DAO, that they can actively step in and provide guidance and an ombudsman approach to find a balanced resolution for this proposal and for RRC-40 that did not meet quorum.

I believe that all the delegates have the best intentions of ensuring that the DAO’s governance is strengthened and creates longevity for the DAO. And that the intent of RRC-40 and this proposal as submitted by @jarisjames addresses that dilemma, and therefore, finding a resolution to this current stalemate for this proposal is the best way forward.

image

2 Likes
#20

Following @coffee-crusher’s suggestion to find a balanced resolution, I’d like to propose a simple poll to help gauge delegate sentiment and close out further debate.

While StableLab plays an important role as a professional governance provider, this decision directly impacts each delegate. Since both proposals: RRC-XX and RRC-40 originated from within the community, it’s only fair that the broader delegate group helps guide the direction we take.

This poll gives us a clear signal on which structure delegates feel is most effective and sustainable moving forward, allowing us to resolve the current situation transparently and without further division.

We have two proposals on the table for the Delegate Incentive Program:

  1. RRC-XX – the current replacement proposal
  2. RRC-40 – the original proposal previously passed onchain

:ballot_box: Which proposal should the DAO adopt moving forward?

  • RRC-XX (Replacement Proposal)
  • RRC-40 (Original Proposal)

0 voters

This vote is non-binding but intended to reflect the will of the community and bring clarity on the preferred path. Thank you to everyone who has participated in this process, let’s give the DAO a clear signal on how to proceed.

2 Likes
#21

@jarisjames , I like this temp check poll to gather sentiment from the community. There are several opinions in the comments above, and getting clarity on what everyone wants in a simplistic way is a great way forward, thanks for posting this!

In addition to this signaling poll to clarify the communities thoughts, I still request that @Matt_StableLab and @Jose_StableLab in their role as the DAOs professional delegate services, to actively participate as ombudsman and providing guidance upon the completion of this poll results, and how it affects RRC-40, if that proposal is resubmitted to Tally for a second vote.

3 Likes
#22

@jarisjames , I also do support adding to this proposal additional details of the inclusion of the creation of a multi-sig with yearly approvals, and agree with @bitblondy to include these details on identifying the members of that multi-sig, requested total multi-sig value for yearly allocation (with budgeted amounts per quarter) and a solution to addressing $RARI price fluctuations. I believe that will make this a stronger proposal for the delegates to consider.

2 Likes
#23

In general, the idea of this incentive program was that it could start off simple and be tuned over time by adjusting pay and criteria. This was why quarterly cadence was chosen and the vote on each distribution could include any proposed rule changes. The intention was for this structure to allow consensus to form amongst delegates as there have already been a few failed delegate incentive proposals in the past, perhaps it wasn’t well-defined enough in hindsight.

An alternative solution that the delegates could consider is to have the tracking and distribution done by Karma, and integrated into the existing Rari DAO Karma dashboard: https://rari.karmahq.xyz/

Karma have confirmed this could be done at a cost of $500 per month so would preserve the costs in RRC-40 and would allow automation of distribution to avoid the need of a multisig and coordinating signers for this. This also has the benefit of using a tracking and distribution system well-proven in other DAOs and keeps all of the metrics related to delegate activity together in one simple UI.

2 Likes
#24

Hey @coffee-crusher thanks for all the great suggestions and feedback, I strongly support your suggestion of including an ombudsman such as StableLab to find a reasonable middle ground. While I have voted on the poll, their is still a lot of nuance required to address concerns which are not highlighted in either proposal. And apologies to all parties involved for any distasteful comments.

Key concerns to address would be:

  1. Process for selection of a delegate incentives multisig, prioritizing security and redundancy.
    Ensuring we prevent single points of failure, and ensuring signers use hardware wallets.

  2. Detailed breakdown of how much RARI would be held in a multisig while accounting for any price fluctuations in the RARI token. Including what the process for requesting extra funding incase of significant depreciation of the token.

  3. Financial sustainability of the delegate incentive program. Spending $12,000 a year to calculate points for less than 20 delegates each quarter is quite high imo. This is simply not great ROI given the size of our DAO.

The reality is the points system was created to be very simple. The points calculation can be done within an hour with a public spreadsheet anyone can understand.

Hope we can all find a reasonable solution to the points raised above. And thank you all for your feedback and inputs.

1 Like
#25

Thanks for the suggestion @cr1st0f. Having a professional provider at the initial cost, that is already integrated in the ecosystem, does sound like a good option as well.
Do you know how they’re handling access to the treasury/funds, if not with a multi-sig?

#26

We’re currently in the middle of a sentiment poll to determine whether the DAO prefers the RRC-XX structure or to continue with RRC-40.

Introducing last-minute vendors while a temp check is live bypasses community review and opens the door to vendor politics, which is exactly what this proposal was designed to prevent. If the DAO wants to explore tools like Karma, that discussion deserves its own thread after this process is complete.

If RRC-XX passes, Q2 will include a live delegate dashboard from daospace, at no additional cost, featuring AI-generated delegate bios built from forum history. Delegators will finally have transparent insight into who each delegate is, what they’ve contributed, and where they focus. Context that empowers smarter delegation.

This is just the beginning. Let’s build something sustainable and inspiring together.

For now, let’s allow the poll, open until May 24 at 12:22 PM EST, to run its course and take the community’s signal seriously before diving into new vendor discussions.

1 Like
#27

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#28

We can simply present a vote to the DAO on tally to determine the path forward. If you wish to present other options than RRC-40 I believe all options should be considered at the same time.

To me, if we wish to not go down the quarterly proposal route, using a cheaper, more proven vendor makes sense and should at least be considered and presented alongside other options. I believe Karma also gives insight into delegates and I encourage everyone to take a look at the existing dashboard.

Please bear in mind that a poll on the forums is not binding and a Tally vote is the proper way to present options for the DAO to vote on.

1 Like
#29

I’ve added Karma to this poll to allow delegates to vote on all of the available options

  • RRC-40
  • daospace @$1000pm
  • Karma @$500pm

0 voters

#30

@cr1st0f I appreciate your input, but I’d encourage you to start a separate thread if you’d like to explore vendor alternatives.

This thread and the active sentiment poll are focused on the structure of the Delegate Incentive Program, not vendor pricing. Reposting a parallel poll during a live vote risks confusing delegates and derailing the discussion.

Happy to engage in a dedicated thread on tooling once the community has signaled its preferred path forward. For now, let’s keep the focus clear

1 Like
#31

I’m a little confused in that case. What is this poll for?

I give delegates a little more credit and I’m sure they won’t be too confused seeing a poll presenting more than one alternative.

For those wondering about context here I tried to post a poll with all available options and Jaris is repeatedly flagging this so it is hidden

#32

Thanks @coffee-crusher and @Sixty for your trust. We already shared our feedback to the proposal, indicating that while there are some positive changes, the current state of RRC-XX lacks some details to submit it onchain. We also offered our help to participate in a potential multisig and to run the operational side of the program for an adjusted budget.

Regarding the role as StableLab as an ombudsman, we don’t think StableLab stepping in and telling other delegates what is the best solution is a desirable scenario. The sole purpose of RRC-40 was to empower the Rari delegate cohort and reward their professionalism to reduce the dependency of, for example, StableLab as a trusted party. We agree with this vision and for this reason we did not oppose the exclusion of StableLab to participate in the program and obtain the rewards. However, now Rari delegate need to display this professionalism and be able to reach a consensus regarding their own compensation. We encourage respectful discussions and addressing the specific points of the proposal in order to reach a definitive outcome.

4 Likes