Hey! Appreciate the patience - we’re working on a new draft incorporating all of the feedback. Expecting to be ready for next week.
4 Likes
Good analysis of incentive programs across various DAOs by DAOstar Research: Delegate Incentive Programs [DAOstar Research] - General - Scroll Governance Forum
4 Likes
Hey folks! We’ve been receiving messages from different delegates regarding the program. For the sake of transparency and to set expectations for the rest of the community in this regard, we are posting here:
After receiving a lot of feedback from delegates, stakeholders, and the Association, we’ve decided to change our approach to the delegates program. We are now working on a new concept/experiment to establish the foundational basis for a broader and more inclusive -yet highly focused- program aligned with the ZK North Star (ZKsync Governance System North Star | ZK Nation).
Will share some insights about this new approach in the next few weeks.
5 Likes
Thanks for the update @SEEDGov
It would be good if delegates would discuss their views here on the forum instead of via messaging. Otherwise we don’t really know why the mindset changed. I am sure the update will tell us, but it would be easier if it was playing out in the open imo.
5 Likes
Hey zknation, I’m Sam, Growth and Governance Lead at DAOstar, excited to join the conversation.
Thank you @Tekr0x.eth for sharing the analysis of DIPs that we posted to the Scroll forum. For those interested, we recently published a more formal report here.
@SEEDGov happy to assist where we can with the design and implementation of a DIP that benefits the ZKsync ecosystem.
5 Likes
Hi everyone!
First of all we appreciate everyone’s patience on this, we know there might have been some different timing expectations but with ETH Denver and other initiatives in the pipeline we decided to keep this on hold for a bit.
After presenting our initial draft, we did a thorough review of all of the feedback as well as of all the thoughtful comments in the original post. We then concluded that a different approach was needed as well as some customization that properly aligns this potential program to the ZK Credo. In that sense, we’ve broadened the scope of the program away from what so far have been traditional delegate incentive programs, understanding governance contributions as a pathway to the ZK North Star and its objectives: Secure the protocol, Expand Onchain Assets, Increase Active Builders and Strengthen ZK Community.
The actions required to pursue these objectives demand for a diverse set of participants and backgrounds and the program is naturally not exempt from the challenges that we already know of: gameability, farming, entrance barriers, transparency, accountability and scaling, among others. This has led to to three main workstreams we’ve been focusing on:
- Contributions and ZK North Star alignment
The task here has been to identify which contributions align within each of the four ZK North Star objectives, which is the expertise required to do so and how is that proficiency attested. For the program, this would translate into diverse profiles with governance, technical, growth and community expertise which shall have specific requirements within the program according to their expertise area in order to be incentivized. - Reputation
We believe the ecosystem is ready to take a further leap into reputation systems and properly leverage all of the accumulated work and knowledge over the years. This should be a core item of the program, both present in the application criteria and matched with a peer-review component within the program, allowing for community signaling and gradual scaling based on this input. - Operations
Incentive structure, payments cadence, anti-sybil mechanisms and program management are some of the aspects considered within the operational framework. To that end, as a rather main topic, and considering the inputs regarding regular vs. retroactive payments, we’re convinced that having monthly disbursements is the best suited for this sort of programs, allowing for previsibility, commitment and alignment.
Also, design and tooling wise, we need to leverage all of the amazing builders that are already committed to zkSync and analyze how/if that can be incorporated into the program in order to collaboratively ensure the program’s success.
Final thoughts and next steps
As we mentioned, we believe the ecosystem is set to adopt some other variants of delegate incentive programs, incorporating reputational components and having a wide-sense of what contributing to governance is. Of course, this should come with an experimental mindset based on what other protocols have been exploring and what zkSync is willing to build. To our eyes, this should set a strong foundation for future iterations and experimentation with sortition mechanisms, guest voting and deliberative structures.
At this point, and with the brand new Community Program announced by the Association, we’d like to open the discussion before further developing the program and listen to what the community has to say regarding this approach, taking into account that this could help to give shape to future iterations of the above-mentioned approach. All feedback is more than welcome and therefore we’re happy to extend the v1 of the ZKNation Trailblazers Program!
Thanks!
5 Likes
Hi, Below are outputs from the SimScore API. The API is designed to statistically aggregate forum responses in consenses priority by weight. The aggregation is then the basis for these AI generated outputs.
Edited ZKNation Trailblazers Program.
SimScore API Edited “Trailblazer Program” Proposal with Tracked Changes
[WIP] ZKNation Trailblazers Program: shooting for the ZKNorthStar
About this Draft
The aim of this draft is to lay the foundations for creating a solid and dynamic system to attract +and reward+ talented contributors to the ZKsync ecosystem.
Motivation
In ZKsync, it is the North Star that gives purpose to the Governance System in its aim to provide security and be a pathway towards the ZKsyncs Credo, and it does so by leveraging governance towards the following objectives: Secure the protocol, Expand Onchain Assets, Increase Active Builders and Strengthen ZK Community.
To live up to these feats, the governance must rely on the community and those willing to contribute to solving ZKsync’s main challenges, helping it become the foundation for the future of the Internet. Therefore, it is essential that the governance acts as a driving force to attract, support, and propel those ready to address ZKsync’s most significant challenges. Through this program, we introduce the role of Trailblazers, who must align with the North Star and work to push the protocol forward from diverse areas while also attracting further talent.
In this context, governance must be primarily focused on ensuring the success of this initiative by achieving the objectives set for it. However, it is crucial to avoid falling into systems that centralized decision-making and become an obstacle to the growth of ZKsync’s ecosystem and its community by introducing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.
Naturally, each objective is tied to specific skill sets and contributions that make up for the possibility of adding value. Since there isn’t a single organization capable of covering all of the potential aspects, a diverse set of talent is required in order to properly represent all of the potential areas of interest comprising the objectives. What this also means is that ongoing efforts are required in order for knowledge to be shared, expanded and applied to the ZKsync ecosystem and its needs, which should be a joint endeavor from the Association, the DAO, and the community as a whole.
Objectives
The objective of the ZK Trailblazers pilot program is then to attract +and incentivize+ the best possible talent to contribute to the ZK North Star, which will act as a baseline in order to allow for future experimentation into sortition mechanisms, Guest voting and impact evaluations of the program on the decision making process, among other topics. Some of the challenges that this proposal addresses are:
- Which skills and contributions are to be valued
- How to recognize them as objectively as possible and
- How to make the program dynamic and scalable
Trailblazers badges
To that end, points 1 and 2 will be taken into consideration into the participation requirements, while for point 3 we’ll be incorporating a peer-review mechanism based on badges in order for trailblazers to recognize valuable actions from trusted community members.
We believe that this initiative serves a twofold purpose: allow for the community to be signaling on valuable activity and making up for the liveliness of the program (Avoiding stagnation or keeping high entrance barriers). The mechanics for this would be as follows: each participant will receive a badge based on their expertise area and upon completion of the round, if successfully meeting the participation criteria, it will be able to distribute one same badge to a community member of their choice.
For the sake of this pilot test, it would be desirable that the zkSync Association provide significant support and gravitate in the selection for the first cohort of badge holders from those who expressed interest and met the criteria established for each category. The program will run initially for six months, with a review conducted after three months to assess the Trailblazers progress. Once the six month period concludes, Trailblazers’ performance will be finally assessed to determine whether they will retain their badge. Furthermore, if they meet the pre-established objectives for the category they belong to, the Trailblazers will have the opportunity to assign a badge to another member of the community. - This way, we expect that the program remains dynamic, preventing stagnation and enabling ZKsync to continue achieving sustained growth and expansion.
+## Retroactive Reward Mechanism
The Trailblazers program will primarily utilize a retroactive reward model rather than fixed monthly payments. This approach ensures that compensation is directly tied to the quality and impact of contributions, not merely participation. Key aspects of this approach include:
- Seasonal assessment periods (3 months) where contributions are evaluated based on both quantitative metrics and qualitative impact
- A multi-stakeholder review process that prevents conflicts of interest by ensuring no delegate can vote on their own rewards
- Recognition of exceptional contributions with bonus rewards
This model supports the ZK Nation’s vision while maintaining the integrity of the delegate-delegator relationship by rewarding actual value creation rather than mere participation.+
Specifications & General Parameters
+## Conflicts of Interest
To maintain the integrity of the Trailblazers program and the broader governance system:
- No delegate serving as a Trailblazer may participate in decisions regarding the Trailblazer reward mechanisms or distribution
- All Trailblazers must submit a Conflict of Interest (CoI) statement documenting their relationships with other protocols and potential competing interests
- The program will implement transparency measures to ensure all delegator-delegate relationships and compensation arrangements are publicly disclosed+
Application requirements
The application requirements are divided in the following categories with non-taxative associated contributions as well as their link to the ZKNS objective.
| Category | Contributions | ZKNS Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Governance involvement | Active participation in votings and providing meaningful feedback in the forum | Secure the protocol |
| Is currently a delegate in other protocols | ||
| Has published a ZK Ecosystem governance research | ||
| Has been a speaker on governance related topics | ||
| Technical comprehension | Has development experience (Smart contracts or Security i.e) | Increase Active Builders |
| Had commits to the ZKSync Repos | ||
| Has meaningfully contributed to discussions on the ZKsync Community Developer Hub on GitHub. | ||
| Is part of the Protocol Guild | ||
| Growth experience | Is a founder or early member of a project | Expand Onchain Assets |
| Has received an ecosystem grant or been a grantee in other protocol | ||
| Has been a grant manager or reviewer in other protocol | ||
| Has relevant DeFi experience | ||
| Ecosystem presence | Has an active X account or website | Strengthen ZK Community |
| Has an active Lens account | ||
| Proven Marketing or DevRel experience | ||
| Is a member or represents an onchain community |
+Additionally, we recognize that being a Trailblazer across multiple L2 ecosystems presents both advantages and challenges. While cross-protocol experience brings valuable perspective, there’s also a need for focused attention on ZKsync’s unique challenges. The program will monitor and evaluate the performance and time commitment of multi-protocol Trailblazers to ensure ZKsync receives adequate attention.+
Also, in order to prevent sybils, a prior whitelist of potential contributors will be drafted as well as having 1:1 interviews for applicants. It is worth mentioning that with the current design of the program we don’t expect sybils or spam to be a vector.
Compensation conditions
In order to meet the quarterly compensation elected participants will have to meet the following quarterly criteria, with different requirements according to their expertise area.
Governance involvement - [Govie badge]
- Reaching 100% of voting participation on on-chain votes
- Sharing voting rationales on the Delegate threads
- Provide strategic feedback on GAP proposals
- +Identifying critical issues in proposals before they reach voting stage+
- Bonus/Bounty = Exceptional contribution on the matter
Technical comprehension - [Techie badge]
- Providing technical assessments and feedback to ZIP proposals
- Performing commits to the ZKsync Repos
- Meaningfully contributed to discussions on the ZKsync Community Developer Hub on GitHub.
- Bonus/Bounty = Exceptional contribution on the matter
Growth experience - [Growie badge]
- Providing strategic feedback to TPP proposals
- Posting insights on the ZK Elastic chain (performance, opportunities, status, analytics)
- Bonus/Bounty = Exceptional contribution on the matter
Ecosystem presence - [Echy badge]
- Creating ZKSync relative content (threads, posts, articles)
- Posting insights on ZKSync Elastic chain media performance
Quality Assessment & Measurement
The success of the Trailblazers program depends on effectively measuring the quality of contributions rather than simply counting activities. To this end:
- The program will implement a multi-faceted evaluation system that considers:
- Forum post quality and impact, not just quantity
- Quality of proposal feedback during formative stages
- Voting records and their alignment with outcomes that proved beneficial in retrospect
- Engagement in delegate calls and community discussions
- A community feedback mechanism will be established for delegators to provide input on Trailblazer performance
- All metrics will be made public through a transparent leaderboard to help delegators make informed decisions about delegation
This approach ensures that rewards are directed toward high-quality contributions that genuinely advance ZKsync’s North Star objectives rather than incentivizing participation without substantive impact.+
Minimum Requirements & Token Holdings
To participate in the Trailblazers program, candidates must demonstrate a minimum level of commitment to the ZKsync ecosystem. However, to promote inclusivity and diversity of perspectives:
- The token holding requirement will be set at 100,000 ZK tokens rather than an exclusionary high threshold
- Participation will be evaluated primarily based on the quality of contributions rather than token holdings
- The program will include measures to prevent self-delegation of insider token balances from qualifying for rewards
These requirements aim to strike a balance between ensuring participants have skin in the game while avoiding barriers that would exclude valuable contributors with smaller token holdings.+
Here is the justification for the edited proposal above.
Justification Document (Expanded with Authors)
Revision 1: Adding “and reward” to the purpose statement
Section Changed: About this Draft
Change:
Original: “The aim of this draft is to lay the foundations for creating a solid and dynamic system to attract talented contributors to the ZKsync ecosystem.”
Revised: “The aim of this draft is to lay the foundations for creating a solid and dynamic system to attract +and reward+ talented contributors to the ZKsync ecosystem.”
Justification:
This change acknowledges that the program is not just about attracting talent but also rewarding valuable contributions.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #16 (pgov, 47% similarity): “Delegates invest time and effort into governance, at a baseline, we are in support of ‘delegate work is work’ and that deserves recognition.”
- Priority #13 (danielm, 47% similarity): “Delegates should be rewarded for their work. Monthly payments would be good, than other types of payments.”
- Priority #15 (danielm, 47% similarity): “Yes, I support it. Being a delegate takes a lot of time and effort, so rewards can help keep good delegates motivated and involved.”
- Priority #47 (smolphil, 36% similarity): “Delegates should be rewarded for their contributions and efforts.”
Revision 2: Adding “and incentivize” to objectives
Section Changed: Objectives
Change:
Original: “The objective of the ZK Trailblazers pilot program is then to attract the best possible talent to contribute to the ZK North Star…”
Revised: “The objective of the ZK Trailblazers pilot program is then to attract +and incentivize+ the best possible talent to contribute to the ZK North Star…”
Justification:
This addition clarifies that the program aims not just to attract but also to provide incentives for talent.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #5 (danielm, 52% similarity): “Do you support the idea of a delegate incentive program for ZK Nation?”
- Priority #15 (danielm, 47% similarity): “Yes, I support it. Being a delegate takes a lot of time and effort, so rewards can help keep good delegates motivated and involved.”
- Priority #39 (smolphil, 37% similarity): “The TDC supports implementing delegate incentives to enhance discourse and governance within ZKsync.”
Revision 3: Adding a Retroactive Reward Mechanism section
Section Changed: New section after Trailblazers badges
Change:
Added entire new section:
Copy
## Retroactive Reward Mechanism
The Trailblazers program will primarily utilize a retroactive reward model rather than fixed monthly payments. This approach ensures that compensation is directly tied to the quality and impact of contributions, not merely participation. Key aspects of this approach include:
1. Seasonal assessment periods (3 months) where contributions are evaluated based on both quantitative metrics and qualitative impact
2. A multi-stakeholder review process that prevents conflicts of interest by ensuring no delegate can vote on their own rewards
3. Recognition of exceptional contributions with bonus rewards
This model supports the ZK Nation's vision while maintaining the integrity of the delegate-delegator relationship by rewarding actual value creation rather than mere participation.
Justification:
This section establishes a clear reward structure based on quality contributions rather than mere participation.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #3 ( lex_node , 55% similarity): “Just rewarding being a delegate is also bad–it’s like a participation trophy. Also, it could lead delegates to govern in a way that entrenches their ‘salaries’. Rather, the program should aim to reward being a high-quality delegate, which basically means a track record of ‘voting correctly,’ in some sense.”
- Priority #17 (Yonathon, 46% similarity): “I support a potential incentive program for delegates and I personally would prefer OP-Style retro rewards, that evolves over time, promoting decentralization.”
- Priority #23 (lex_node, 44% similarity): “Another idea would be to do retro style rewards, but based on retroactive rating of proposals rather than individual delegates.”
- Priority #35 (404Gov, 39% similarity): “Recognizing delegates who identify critical issues could be implemented through retro-active rewards rather than through standard base incentives”
Revision 4: Adding a Conflicts of Interest section
Section Changed: New section after Specifications & General Parameters
Change:
Added entire new section:
Copy
## Conflicts of Interest
To maintain the integrity of the Trailblazers program and the broader governance system:
1. No delegate serving as a Trailblazer may participate in decisions regarding the Trailblazer reward mechanisms or distribution
2. All Trailblazers must submit a Conflict of Interest (CoI) statement documenting their relationships with other protocols and potential competing interests
3. The program will implement transparency measures to ensure all delegator-delegate relationships and compensation arrangements are publicly disclosed
Justification:
This section addresses significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the reward system.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #2 (lex_node, 56% similarity): “Another point is that delegates should be completely disqualified from having influence over delegate rewards, beyond establishing the program in itself. i.e. if there is such a BORG/committee as described in #4, no delegates should serve on it.”
- Priority #34 (cap, 40% similarity): “Solution suggestion: a general-purpose Conflict of Interest (CoI) statement that applies to all delegates, could be added to the ZK Nation in Delegate Standards, or working Constitution.”
- Priority #37 (teresace.eth, 37% similarity): “a. Some delegators have formal agreements with their delegates, often involving compensation. Should these delegates prioritize their delegators’ interests above all else? What happens when these interests conflict with the broader vision outlined in the ZKSync Governance System North Star?”
Revision 5: Adding multi-L2 consideration paragraph
Section Changed: After the application requirements table
Change:
Added paragraph:
Copy
Additionally, we recognize that being a Trailblazer across multiple L2 ecosystems presents both advantages and challenges. While cross-protocol experience brings valuable perspective, there's also a need for focused attention on ZKsync's unique challenges. The program will monitor and evaluate the performance and time commitment of multi-protocol Trailblazers to ensure ZKsync receives adequate attention.
Justification:
This addition acknowledges the unique considerations for delegates who serve in multiple governance systems.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #1 (Benido, 67% similarity): “Should a incentive program reward delegates differently if they are just delegate for one L2 compared to delegates that are serving in several L2 governance systems?”
- Priority #46 (Benido, 36% similarity): “I am asking this cause on the one hand I am sure want experienced and knowledgable delegates. On the other hand if all delegates are working for all L2s their position could be harmed cause it’s all ‘same same but different’.”
Revision 6: Adding critical issue identification to Govie badge requirements
Section Changed: Compensation conditions - Govie badge
Change:
Original:
Copy
Governance involvement - [Govie badge]
- Reaching 100% of voting participation on on-chain votes
- Sharing voting rationales on the Delegate threads
- Provide strategic feedback on GAP proposals
- Bonus/Bounty = Exceptional contribution on the matter
Revised:
Copy
Governance involvement - [Govie badge]
- Reaching 100% of voting participation on on-chain votes
- Sharing voting rationales on the Delegate threads
- Provide strategic feedback on GAP proposals
- +Identifying critical issues in proposals before they reach voting stage+
- Bonus/Bounty = Exceptional contribution on the matter
Justification:
This addition recognizes the value of early feedback in the proposal process.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #9 (404Gov, 51% similarity): “Arbitrum’s recent v1.5 iteration on their delegate incentive program has started rewarding delegates who provide thoughtful feedback during the formative stages of proposals which helps…”
- Priority #35 (404Gov, 39% similarity): “Recognizing delegates who identify critical issues could be implemented through retro-active rewards rather than through standard base incentives”
Revision 7: Adding Quality Assessment & Measurement section
Section Changed: New section after Ecosystem presence requirements
Change:
Added entire new section:
Copy
## Quality Assessment & Measurement
The success of the Trailblazers program depends on effectively measuring the quality of contributions rather than simply counting activities. To this end:
1. The program will implement a multi-faceted evaluation system that considers:
- Forum post quality and impact, not just quantity
- Quality of proposal feedback during formative stages
- Voting records and their alignment with outcomes that proved beneficial in retrospect
- Engagement in delegate calls and community discussions
2. A community feedback mechanism will be established for delegators to provide input on Trailblazer performance
3. All metrics will be made public through a transparent leaderboard to help delegators make informed decisions about delegation
This approach ensures that rewards are directed toward high-quality contributions that genuinely advance ZKsync's North Star objectives rather than incentivizing participation without substantive impact.
Justification:
This section establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating the quality of delegate contributions.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #3 (lex_node, 55% similarity): “Just rewarding being a delegate is also bad–it’s like a participation trophy. Also, it could lead delegates to govern in a way that entrenches their ‘salaries’. Rather, the program should aim to reward being a high-quality delegate, which basically means a track record of ‘voting correctly,’ in some sense.”
- Priority #4 (drnick, 52% similarity): “Delegate signalling / feedback systems that make the delegate role an actively bi-directional conversation between delgatees and delgators could generate information that could be used to shape incentives. For example, this delegate with X number of delegators has this approval rating, which leads to Y rewards.”
- Priority #10 (benido, 51% similarity): “My main point is: If someone wants to be a (zksync) delegate but doesn’t even have time to monitor the forums for a few hours a week, but starts being more active when there’s an incentive involved… I am not sure this is the right delegate the incentive program should be aiming for.”
- Priority #24 (tempetechie.eth, 43% similarity): “I agree, it’s not good to rank delegates only by votes. It should also take into account the value they provide in creating or discussing proposals etc.”
- Priority #29 (smolphil, 42% similarity): “Participation should be measured by multiple factors (e.g. forum posts, engagement metrics on the forum, quality of forum posts, onchain votes, actionable feedback in forum posts, proposals made, participation in delegate calls, etcetera). These metrics could serve as a public leaderboard for stakeholders looking to (re)delegate their $ZK tokens, providing an objective measure of a delegate’s ability to garner support.”
Revision 8: Adding Minimum Requirements & Token Holdings section
Section Changed: New section at the end of the document
Change:
Added entire new section:
Copy
## Minimum Requirements & Token Holdings
To participate in the Trailblazers program, candidates must demonstrate a minimum level of commitment to the ZKsync ecosystem. However, to promote inclusivity and diversity of perspectives:
1. The token holding requirement will be set at 100,000 ZK tokens rather than an exclusionary high threshold
2. Participation will be evaluated primarily based on the quality of contributions rather than token holdings
3. The program will include measures to prevent self-delegation of insider token balances from qualifying for rewards
These requirements aim to strike a balance between ensuring participants have skin in the game while avoiding barriers that would exclude valuable contributors with smaller token holdings.
Justification:
This section addresses concerns about barriers to entry and potential gaming of the system.
- Supporting feedback:
- Priority #14 (danielm, 47% similarity): “I think having 250K ZK tokens to join the incentive program is too high because not all delegates can hold that much. Many good delegates work hard and add value even if they don’t have a lot of tokens. Setting the requirement lower, like 100K tokens, makes it fairer and gives more people a chance to take part in the program.”
- Priority #20 (Benido, 45% similarity): “If there is a delegate incentive program at some point, these addresses should be double checked and best case eliminated from receiving rewards.”
- Priority #27 (Yonathon, 42% similarity): “The reason I became a delegate was to help avoid a centralization of governance within the same big delegates we all know (no hate!) and I believe such a program should try to promote just that; normal users participating.”
- Priority #38 (drnick, 37% similarity): “There’s always a line to be drawn somewhere and like in the optimism example above if top 100 delegates get paid, then you get 100 delegates and no more. Realising the reward threshold means there’s no point in participating at all unless you’re in the frame.”
And below is the comparison between Trailblazer Program v1 vs Trailblazer sa1 by SimScore API.
Here is the comparison between @SEEDGov original and SimScore API edited version of Trailblazers Program.
Comparison Between Original and Revised ZKNation Trailblazers Program Proposals
Structural Changes
Original Proposal:
- Focused primarily on the badge system and application requirements
- Had minimal details on reward mechanisms and quality assessments
- Lacked specific guidelines for conflicts of interest
Revised Proposal:
- Maintains the original structure but adds four entirely new sections:
- Retroactive Reward Mechanism
- Conflicts of Interest
- Quality Assessment & Measurement
- Minimum Requirements & Token Holdings
- Enhances existing sections with additional criteria and considerations
Key Differences
1. Reward Philosophy
Original:
- Implied rewards but didn’t specify the reward structure
- Focused more on the badge distribution mechanism
- Didn’t address potential conflicts in reward distribution
Revised:
- Explicitly acknowledges “delegate work is work”
- Introduces a retroactive reward model rather than fixed monthly payments
- Establishes clear assessment periods (3 months)
- Prevents conflicts of interest in reward decisions
2. Quality Assessment
Original:
- Listed required activities but with limited metrics for quality
- Mainly focused on completion of tasks rather than their impact
- Had no mechanism for community feedback on delegate performance
Revised:
- Implements multi-faceted evaluation systems focused on quality over quantity
- Adds community feedback mechanisms for delegators
- Creates a transparent leaderboard for performance metrics
- Emphasizes quality of forum posts, proposal feedback, and voting records
3. Inclusivity and Accessibility
Original:
- No specific mention of token thresholds
- Limited consideration for smaller delegates or multi-protocol delegates
Revised:
- Sets a more accessible token threshold (100,000 ZK tokens)
- Addresses concerns about delegates serving across multiple L2 ecosystems
- Includes measures to prevent gaming by insider token balances
- Emphasizes quality of contributions over token holdings
4. Ethical Guidelines
Original:
- No explicit conflict of interest provisions
- Limited transparency requirements
Revised:
- Requires Conflict of Interest statements from all Trailblazers
- Prohibits delegates from participating in decisions about their own rewards
- Mandates transparency in delegator-delegate relationships
- Establishes clearer ethical boundaries
Impact of Changes
The revised proposal:
- Better Aligns Incentives: By focusing on quality over quantity and implementing retroactive rewards tied to impact, the program better aligns participant incentives with ZKsync’s goals.
- Increases Transparency: Through conflict of interest disclosures, public leaderboards, and community feedback mechanisms, the revised proposal significantly enhances transparency.
- Promotes Inclusivity: By lowering barriers to entry while maintaining quality standards, the program becomes more accessible to valuable contributors with smaller token holdings.
- Maintains Original Vision: While adding significant detail, the revisions preserve and strengthen the original intent of creating a dynamic system aligned with the ZK North Star.
- Addresses Community Concerns: The revisions directly address the highest-ranked community feedback, particularly regarding delegate quality, conflicts of interest, multi-L2 participation, and reward mechanisms.
In summary, the revised proposal represents a more comprehensive, practical, and community-responsive framework while maintaining the original structure and purpose of the ZKNation Trailblazers Program.
Why can’t AI be used to manage and distribute these rewards? We could launch a program to train an AI to evaluate the contributions and value of community contributors, and by training the AI, continuously optimize and adjust the incentive strategy. Once the conditions are mature, rewards could be directly distributed through the interaction of smart contracts and AI, completing the incentive closed loop.
This is a good proposal. For my tastes a little bureaucratic but if we must have bureaucracy at least it should be well thought out, which this seems to be. I especially like the incorporation of feedback.
My one quibble is the 100k ($7,000) requirement. This to my eye is basically a hidden form of centralisation in that it favours established delegates, OGs, professional DAO outfits/governerds and those from ‘developed’ nations. It sets a very high bar for newcomers of all forms.
@mcfly in an earlier post says: 'I think it should be a reasonable ratio relative to the Delegate rewards. 250k is probably too high, though we should denominate it in USD equivalent. Note that the idea was to allow delegates to accumulate required balance over first 6 months of DIP. ’
This seems reasonable but I don’t see it in the updated proposal. That at least gives people outside us usual suspects a chance to get skin in the game.
Appreciate the feedback! No doubt the VP requirement is sensitive and definitely can be an entrance barrier, it’s a sweet spot between avoiding farming and recognizing contributors that already are in the ecosystem. In that sense, and beyond that, we think the reputation-side of the program allows for that signaling beyond just the VP.
In the draft we intentionally avoided entering on that discussion in order to leverage if the overall direction made sense to the community so the 100k is definitely not the latest version. The just shared Gov dashboard is a perfect input in order to start thinking this through with more detail.
3 Likes
My 2c is a reduction down to about 75k could work. Basically I think it’s good we want people with skin in the game but also we don’t want to simply means professional delegates, dapps, etc. It should be possible for an Average Joe ZK delegate to be incentivised.
1 Like
The real question is how significant the reward is relative to the cost of acquiring ZK tokens. Newcomers might join solely for the “yield,” incentivizing them to participate and lock ZK tokens.
We should perhaps establish a 6-month holding period for the 100k or 75k ZK tokens to ensure participants have sufficient "skin in the game.
We need additional, new mechanisms so that the right people are incentivized or rewarded.
3 Likes
Hello everyone,
I just made a comment to the doc provided by @SEEDGov.
I think in general this program is good and especially with Seed in good hands, as they are already handling the DIP on Arbitrum very well.
Maybe we should start with some softer rules, so we can get as many as possible delegates active and then change it over time. But as I said, I added comments.
3 Likes
I understand the idea, but I am not sure I’ll agree. If someone purchases the X zk tokens and then meets the criteria that is meant to identify good delegates, then they are a good delegate? (or the criteria are broken)
If we want to add some kind of new mechanism then I would likely propose a “flawless” X month participation in the zk TA (e.g. voted on all proposals, active in the forum etc.)
So basically “show you’re a good delegate for some time before you can qualify for the delegate rewards”. And it’s completely fair to same this mechanism is just same same and the argument I made applies here as well, cause it does!
I also believe that people shouldn’t be in it just for the rewards! So making them wait some time will likely eliminate some of those. On top I believe that delegates in most cases won’t be good delegates from day 1 on, cause it’s a social construct and you first have to find your place in the TA, which is why my approach (that forces them to participate for X months in governance, and not just hold the ZK) might actually be same same but different.
5 Likes
Actually, I didn’t mean to replace participation for X months but rather to add more prerequisites for participation. Introducing additional layers would deter people who are participating solely for the rewards.
So, my idea was meant to build on top of the existing ones, not just focusing on holding periods or amounts.
I’d also add that I’m still not sure a DIP similar to ARB is exactly what we want.
2 Likes