Hi! First and foremost we hope the forum remains a place where respectful exchange can be made in order to get the best out of each one willing to participate. The DAO and their units have been open and accessible, so let’s honor that by having constructive conversations.
Regarding the RFC and the DIP, we believe scoring systems are indeed the best way to capture delegates contributions to the best of their capacity. This allows for a proper ranking of contributions which then translates to meeting - or not - the required threshold for being part of the program while recognizing contributions of all sizes. The fine tuning of the score will come out of iterations and experimentation, which was the original spirit of the proposal.
On a first run, the 70% participation rate seems reasonable for the amount of activity although recognizing performance above that should be incorporated and naturally welcomed. This is naturally tied to the sharing of rationales. On a recently passed proposal, the ARB DIP gave more weight to the quality of rationales/feedback based parameters such as relevance, timing, etc. This could be explored on further iterations of Lido’s DIP when the participation rate is consolidated.
Certainly it’s too soon to jump into conclusions, but some early thoughts of the recent rally come to the fact that the 2M required threshold might have been too high. The ∼12M delegated LDO are most likely to fall short to meet the VP objective set on LIP-21 but for a first round it sure is worthy. Of course it’s not only about the VP so re-working the threshold and leveraging the efforts made so far into an improved DIP are what we consider next steps.
Thanks and happy to further discuss this!