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

[coffee-crusher]

@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.

[coffee-crusher]

@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.

[cr1st0f]

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.

[Sixty]

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.

[bitblondy]

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?

[jarisjames]

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.

[cr1st0f]

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

[cr1st0f]

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.

[cr1st0f]

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

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

[jarisjames]

@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

[cr1st0f]

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

[Jose_StableLab]

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.

[Firefly808]

I think we should immediately rerun RRC-42, as RRC-40 has already passed, and it’s important we follow through on our previous commitments. At the same time, we should continue refining Jaris’s improved RRC-XX proposal, incorporating some of the suggested improvements from this discussion.

Regarding the admin fee, $1,000 per month might be justified initially due to the extensive setup and adjustments needed. However, as the process becomes more streamlined and automated over time, I’d expect that fee to decrease after one or two periods.

[Jaf]

I agree with @Firefly808 .

Also, with all the feedback shared in this thread, and the diligence and transparency @jarisjames has shown, I’m confident he’ll be able to make the remaining improvements and get RRC-XX to the finish line.

[cr1st0f]

I believe this sets a bad precedent and will be voting against the proposal.

In particular I don’t appreciate the portrayal of the original authors of RRC40, the attempt by a company hired to administer a program to increase their control, removal of the community’s voice and ability to shape the incentive program over time which was a core aspect of RRC40, and the renegotiation of terms before delivering.

The whole thing feels full of animosity, chaotic, and unprofessional. It feels more like an attempt at a hostile takeover of an existing initiative that has already been voted on than an attempt to get better outcomes for the DAO. If this becomes the norm within Rari there will be no incentive for people to start new initiatives in the first place and is a negative direction for us to be taking.

[coffee-crusher]

While I understand your viewpoints, @cr1st0f, unless we find a resolution, we are still at a stalemate with both the “temp check” poll created by @jarisjames that shows we are at an almost 50/50 split, and the divertive opinions already commented on this proposal.

I believe that RRC-40 is lacking some important functionality to address issues such as reducing governance/overly complicated payment process, including the use of a multi-sig and addressing the issue of fluctuations in $RARI token pricing.

I also don’t support the theory that the use of a tool like Karma, is an adequate replacement to a dedicated program administer for this program, since Karma is just one tool in the toolkit to verify (on & off chain) governance activity - such as tracking total voting percentages and/or unique Forum contributions. It takes a combination of tool(s) + actual verification that the reports are accurate.

As I’ve already stated previously, the responsibilities of the program administrator, is more than just reviewing and gathering numbers, as primarily their sole responsibilities are eligibility verification, reward dispute management, transparency reporting and payment assurance.

I agree with @Firefly808 recommendation of re-submitting of RRC-42 to Tally, and to continue refining this proposal from Jaris. This will allow for continuance of the program, and with the intent of RRC-40 for refinements by the community, these can be addressed with this replacement DIP as submitted by Jaris.

Finally, I appreciate @Jose_StableLab thoughtful response regarding their recommendation to continue the level of professionalism, the need to reach consensus on this proposal, and for their offer to participate in a multi-sig. As I had suggested in an earlier comment for some of the members of the Security Council be represented on the multi-sig, which includes StableLabs.

The recommendation for StableLabs to act in the capacity as an ombudsman, is probably not the best description of what I had intended. My intent is for StableLabs to advise the delegates on how to move this stalemated discussion forward, as their role as the DAOs professional delegate services using their experience in multiple DAOs, with recommendations on how to move towards a consensus.

[cr1st0f]

I don’t think there’s any stalemate here, we have RRC-40 approved by a tally vote.

Authors of RRC-40 intend to make adjustments as needed going forward which will be presented to the DAO along with quarterly calculations done by Jaris. The price fluctuations of RARI were already taken into account as the budget is denominated in dollars.

If for some reason there is now a perception of issues with quarterly proposals then the original authors of RRC-40 should probably be given the opportunity to rework the original proposal, in the same way that they would have if these issues had been raised during the discussion phase as they should have been. It is problematic for a takeover of the proposal and entire reworking of the system whilst excluding the original authors who put effort into designing a proposal which was overwhelmingly supported by delegates at the time.

[Jose_StableLab]

I see your point @coffee-crusher. As RRC-42 couldn’t pass due to decaying veRARI but there was consensus about it and all the delegate efforts had already been achieved. Not to delay the payment anymore I would just resubmit RRC-42 as-is. With StableLab’s VP back in place we should be able to reach quorum. Meanwhile, we have little over a month to decide on next steps for Q2 activity and beyond.

If that sounds like a good short-term solution, I can proceed with the submission by the end of this week so we can continue focusing on Q2.

[Jose_StableLab]

As Jana clarified in the delegate TG chat. RRC-42 passed quorum as quorum is dynamic based on the number of veRARI, just Tally UI didn’t display it correctly. Therefore, and following the guidelines stated in RRC-40 and RRC-42, the proposal was sent to the queue. In 48 hours it’ll be ready for execution. All delegates will be paid the corresponding RARI allocation and the continuation of the program will be based on the outcome of the discussions over the following weeks.

[coffee-crusher]

This is a very sensible suggestion, @Jose_StableLab regarding focusing on Q2, as it’s now upon us. Per your second comment, Jana was able to correct the quorum displaying veRARI that allowed RRC-42 to pass quorum and the votes in favor, so Q1 is in play to finalize execution.

What do you see is the best process for consensus of either changes to RRC-40 for the Q2 DIP and/or going forth with this proposal submitted by @jarisjames as a replacement to RRC-40?

I see both as options, since the DAO has the right adjust RRC-40 per how the proposal was written to allow for quarterly adjustments, or to submit an alternative program proposal, as proposed here.

From my perspective, it is to have a delegate incentive program that has the greatest strength for long-term success (i.e. a repeatable program after the year one introduction), and is attractive to attract potential new delegates - both newer delegates and experienced delegates to balance out our governance knowledge and experience.