Proposal:IP Recognized Delegates Program

This proposal welcomes discussion and suggestions for improvement


To grow to its maximum potential, Interest Protocol needs to decentralize its ownership and put protocol control into a large group of thoughtful and intelligent participants. We would like to introduce the Recognized Delegates Program. Five percent of the total IPT supply has been earmarked to compensate delegates and reward those active in Governance of the protocol.


Delegate Eligibility

  • Be active in community discussion boards, staying sufficiently informed about challenges and solutions in the IP community.

  • Provide an Ethereum address and/or ENS for delegation purposes.

  • Include identifying details ( Delegate Name, ENS/EthereumAddress, Forum Handle(s), Alternate Means Of Contact (Twitter, Discord, Email, etc.)

  • Write a brief Delegate Statement (including general voting philosophy, alignment with IP goals, and why you are the best candidate), including and d a brief list of your core values, close all conflicts of interest (potential and actual), and provide a written policy on how current or future conflicts will be handled when voting.

  • Provide a list of authorized representatives if the Recognized Delegate is a team or institution;

Compensation Eligibility:

  • Communicate on the IP forum how and why a delegate voted the way they did within seven days of the close of a vote (minimum 90% of the time) in their dedicated delegate thread.
  • Command voting weight greater than or equal to 1 basis point of the total IPT supply;
  • Participate in at least 90% of all on-chain IP votes within the previous 90 days
  • The Recognized Delegate (or one authorized representative if a team or institution) must attend at least one public protocol development call each month.


Communication and vote participation metrics will use a cumulative average on a rolling window of 120 days (accounting for sickness, leave, or any other lack of activity).

Each Recognized Delegate will be entitled to a monthly compensation of:
y = (0.0989899*x+0.1010101)/12
y = Compensation (in IPT)
x = Lowest total of IPT delegated to address during that calendar month

In the event, a delegate utilizes two addresses during the same month (e.g. moving from an EOA to a multisig), the larger of the two addresses will be used for compensation purposes.

(Measurement) To ensure that the recognized delegates have met their responsibilities for compensation, an administrator will

  • Review delegate communication on voting and reasoning ( within the specified timeframe)
  • Record on-chain IP votes by delegates at vote close
  • Note attendance at the public protocol development meeting
  • Provide a summary of these metrics for all Recognized Delegates in a post on the Interest Protocol forum once per month


The administrator will dedicate an estimated 2 hours a week, compensated at 75 USDI/hour for a flat monthly compensation of 600 USDi per month.

The initial administrator will be me Feems (active DAO contributor, governance engineer, and spend my free time facilitating weekly governance education sessions ). In the event the current administrator chooses to step down, a new administrator must be appointed by a governance proposal, with the following exception:

The current administrator may train a replacement who will work under the current administrator for no less than 30 days. That replacement may take over the administrator role without a vote by IP governance, provided the current administrator provides a written statement on the forum introducing the replacement at the beginning of training and handing over the position at a date of their choosing.


I’m gonna jump right in here as the first comment to say that I am so excited to see someone get the ball rolling on getting governance more decentralized! Also, big welcome to @feems and congratulations on posting the very first Interest Protocol Improvement Proposal!!!

If anyone has input, this is obviously your time to do it over the coming days! If it passes, people may want to go ahead and start lobbying for delegations from their fellow IPT holders as well.


Probably a good idea to put a minimum and maximum threshold here. Looking at the line, perhaps delegates must have .01% of all IPT delegated to them? And stop accruing more compensation after 1% of all IPT is delegated to them?

What do folks think? Good line? And if the line is good, are those good minimum and maximum thresholds?

I think that is a good idea so compensation can be measured accurately based on activity and output, as well as within the budget allocated.

1 Like

Good to see someone taking a stab here at terms and conditions regarding delegation.

I will post on a related topic elsewhere (stakeholder representation in governance).

I really don’t understand this formula (or more particularly the goal with such a formula) since the first linear term in x will dominate over the constant with x>100 (example x=100, y=.83333, x=1000, y=8.257575, x=10000, y=82.5) etc.

I agree with @PaperImperium that some idea of a minimum IPT to be maintained should be required to be a delegate. Capping the total not sure how much this makes sense.

One thing I suggested at MakerDAO was an idea that all players should be compensated in governance using a governance bounty model as this rewards all governance participants directly based on their participation in governance.

Ask yourself what is important to governance. (and realize I want to hear from others here before formulating a rewards model for governance participation, delegate or not).

When I answer this I come to the following as governance goals.

  1. Governance votes/voting.
  2. Governance communication (timely reasons for voting one way or another)
  3. Proposal submission that leads to real community engagement/dialogue.
  4. Proposal enactment that materially changes the protocol leading to:
    a) higher productivity
    b) more engaged community
    c) more protocol revenue
    d) greater market share.
    e) higher community token market cap. (/s>)

I contend a bounty model for governance IS the most efficient model for governance participation and has the potential to reward all stakeholders participating in governance directly based on.

governance weight.
governance participation/communication
success or failure of a proposal.
leading ultimately to net protocol revenues and market share.

So one could put up bounties as follows (numbers are just examples):

  1. 5000 IPT for someone putting up a IPP (IP-Proposal) that leads to an on-chain poll.
  2. 5000 IPT to be shared by the IPP co-authors (as per the co-author vote) on the proposal.
  3. 10000 IPT reward to be divided by proposal voters based on voting weight.
  4. Additional IPT shared by all proposals based on a yearly assessment of IPP improvements to the protocol.

BTW: 5% of the total IPT here is 5M IPT (or between $$1M-1.25M at current market values .2 to .25/IPT). If there are 100 proposals in a year and 10K IPT is allocated to total rewards this is 1M/yr (or $$200-250K). BTW: At current market price of $.19-.2/IPT the above is 1.9-2K/proposal (author, co-authors, voters, etc.).

To give a real world example MakerDAO currently is paying about $1M-1.5M/yr for delegate engagement by > 10 delegates (and 1-2 key delegators).

FYI: TO allow for and encourage delegation there should be a rewards split (50:50?) between voting bounties (not work or communication or proposal creation) by a delegator and a delegate. In the example above the 10000 IPT would be divided by delegates and delegators based on the wallet weight. All of these rewards are portioned out by a ‘claim’ mechanism similar to the liquidity rewards claim.

Using bounties vs. some pay formula for delegates actually takes into account performance metrics (you don’t get compensated if you don’t vote, nor do you delegators, and if you don’t communicate you don’t get the part of the governance bounty related to communication).

Bounties are an elegant and easy way to manage/reward governance participation. I would make a suggestion to tie bounties to some minimum and maximum $$ and IPT values so these don’t get out of whack over time as the IPT value changes up and down.

So lets try to open this discussion up a bit to something like.

What are IP governance goals?
How can these be incentivized in a long term sustainable way?


It’s just the formula for the line shown in the possible delegate pay GFX published in the white paper (which is why I suggested a minimum threshold and a ceiling).

I think if someone has alternative line or curve, this is definitely the time to talk about if compensation should be linear, increasing with IPT, or decreasing. One could also imagine just a flat compensation for the top n delegates.

They all have trade offs, and ultimately is up to the community to arrive at a consensus.

Now that someone like @feems is offering to do the non-glamorous administration tasks for a program, I think there’s room for creativity or even a series of trials to try several solutions, whether it’s for compensating only delegates or only proposal authors or both or something entirely different.

1 Like

This looks good for me though
But I don’t quite understand this part

Authorized representatives would refer to a team/organization that will share the Delegate role an example of such a group is GFX Labs, Stablenode, Flipside Crypto, Llama, AcreInvest etc. The benefit of teams is that they will often have internal sources of expertise (like legal advice or finance experience) that an individual is unlikely to have.


Well explained :fire: thanks alot mate

Seems like this is an awfully low payout to be participating as a delegate. Unless I’ve messed something up you’re looking at $120k annualized for holding 10% of the voting power. And since it’s linear there’s hardly any incentive to join at the minimum threshold.

This was the reason for doing it quadratically @ MakerDAO. Don’t necessarily need it, but if you aren’t incentivizing taking the risk, few will show up to do the work.

I would recommend greatly increasing the slope and putting in a reasonable cap, or modeling off of Maker’s equation.



Something I missed during this delegate discussion.

Question regarding the 90% vote participation metric. Does this mean IP delegates will have to vote yes to proposals to show support or just make a statement why they support or won’t stand against a particular proposal?

Probably need to clarify this given the optimistic nature of proposals.

1 Like

That’s a good point; thanks for bringing light to it; you are correct there isn’t a way to track optimistic proposal position on chain. I think a good way for me to track position and participation is for delegates to explicitly note when they support an optimistic proposal in their communication.

1 Like

This proposal passed (optimistically, so opposition was not forthcoming during the vote).

Congratulations to @feems, I look forward to seeing you get this program up and running. It sounds like the first order of business may be publishing some guidance to delegates about this edge case on how you will count participation on optimistic proposals.

I also encourage anyone interested in becoming a Recognized Delegate and qualify for compensation to create a thread where @feems can easily track your required information and communications. @Llama and @IPTMan and RiskDAO have already done this, and can serve as an example for new delegates.


Awesome, great advice I will work on that


will there be an opportunity in the future for Q&A for all the recognized delegates? or would it be appropriate to just ask them directly via their delegate platform post?

1 Like

I’ll see if we can get a first call scheduled with @feems in January. Your most timely and direct route of communications with delegates is probably the forum or (if you know them) direct messages on Discord/email/Signal/Telegram/Twitter/smoke signals.


The Synthetix Ambassadors are interested in becoming a recognized delegate; we will be more active in Governance with Interest Protocol. Looking forward to the call in January.


@feems, when is the next delegate call?

Friday - we usually post the meetings on the announcement page on discord: Discord

1 Like