RFC: Renewal of the Hop Delegate Incentivization Trial

This incentivization trial aims to encourage as many quality delegates to get involved in the DAO as possible. I support renewing the delegate incentivization trial and resetting the minimum participation metrics each 6 month cycle to provide a window for new entrants. As long as the new delegates meet the minimum delegated vote threshold they should be given the opportunity to be compensated for their time and effort. Since governance is more effective with ongoing participation, I believe there should still be a minimum voting and communication metric.

I also agree that older delegates should be compensated more because we should strive to keep our delegates involved in the DAO for the long term as governance participation becomes more effective throughout time. I like the option of using a multiplier for older delegate compensation but agree that it shouldn’t be too high to avoid large gaps of inequality.

If there are no objections to this formula, could we move forward with it.

The major points to note are that.

  • The Participation rate would be removed; therefore, new delegates who reach the 90,000 threshold could join as delegates at any time.

  • The incentive formula would be amended to include a Multiplier based on consecutive participation periods.


This RFC is now HIP-28 and up for vote on Snapshot!

I’m voting yes. I think this has been a really good program. With renewals of the program having to be voted on at 6 month intervals I think there is little risk to implementing it.

I would like a clarification here. The participation period is a 6-month period? Or a single vote? So the multiplier counts per 6-months periods for active delegation? Or per vote participation?

The multiplier counts per 6-months periods for active delegation. A “completed” participation period only requires the delegate to have voted at least once during that period.

Will all previously active delegates be starting at 1.1 this period?

Separately, (and I know it’s on me for not chiming in earlier) a 1.5x multiplier sounds like a lot

Think it sounds quite reasonable to reset this period every six months, not sure about the final formula, but a good direction nonetheless

I voted YES for now as we should renew and the general direction is fine.

But I also don’t really get the point of the multiplier. Mind you it’s in my interest to have a multiplier as I have been here since the start but not sure that this is fair to newcomers. And we should strive to make governance attractive to newcomers!

1 Like

Open question–I’m not sure we really defined that well. Thoughts?

@lefterisjp I think the argument in favor of the multiplier is that longer-standing delegates have more context and would therefore be more valuable to the DAO. That said, I think it might go too far to say they’re up to 150% more valuable.

@fourpoops I don’t mind either way but given the argument above it would follow to count the first trial period meaning delegates who voted at all during the initial trial period will have 1.1 for this period’s reporting.

@lefterisjp @max-andrew

What do you think a good multiplier / formula would be? I know the 1.5 cap came from my post as the first to throw it out there. My thoughts on the multiplier is that its a nice bonus to incentivize people to stay around and stay active, but curious to see other’s thoughts. In the context of the program, it would have hypothetically inflated that first 6-month by at most 42,500 (in a scenario where everyone was 1.5 x 85,129.21).

The adjusted leniency in definition of participation should somewhat balance centralization fears out as it would be way more forgiving for new members. Of course, lead a horse to water applies here…

The one nice thing is if this passes the highest anyone would be is at 1.1 the next period. So if as the discussion matures consensus is that the cap should maybe only be 1.25 or something, we have runway to amend the formula at that time. I just wanted to ask, since with that in mind while it’s late to have in terms of this HIP vote, it’s not too late in the grand scheme of things.

All good points. I think I would just make it a smaller multiplier over a longer period of time, but I completely agree that we have time and can refine it as we go which is why I voted in favor.

Only 50% more, which sounds reasonable to me. 150% would definitely be too much of a premium. What’s nice about having to renew this every 6 months is that we have a bit of time to assess how the multiplier is even working before we get to the max. (edit: seeing that’s exactly what @Bob-Rossi just said too)

my take:

  • incentivizing delegate involvement is the goal.
  • the participation threshold discourages involvement.
  • the participation multiplier encourages continuous involvement.
  • rewarding long-standing delegates for continuous involvement seems extremely reasonable.
  • a multiplier is an effective tool for such a reward, and the current 1.5 multiplier (a) seems more than fair and (b) will apply to new delegates who continue to participate just as it will apply to delegates who have participated for almost a year.
1 Like

I’d rather we do not. As this is something that is voted right now and as such the rules should start “counting from now”.

Otherwise we effectively vote to give ourselves a head start. Which does not sound right.

this is a fair point.

Agreed, this is a fair point. It’s also the conservative approach, which we should stick with particularly if there is any shred of doubt.

i do like erring on the side of caution, especially where ethics are concerned.

@fourpoops The final resolution would be to decrease the multiplier to make it fairer to older and new delegates as well.

Does anyone have any proposed numbers in mind?

@Bob-Rossi @max-andrew @lefterisjp