A note on how this cycle’s compensation review played out, and what we’re proposing for the next one.
Over the past few weeks we noticed activity patterns from two delegate teams that didn’t quite match the spirit of the program. Before considering any harder action, we worked through several technical fixes within the existing framework:
Adjusted weights on metrics that were easy to optimize for
Added caps on high-volume, low-substance activities
Did manual review passes to assess engagement quality
Each round helped at the margins, but the underlying gap stayed open. The framework was rewarding patterns we didn’t design it to reward, and incremental tuning wasn’t closing things fast enough. After working through the options, we concluded that for this cycle the appropriate step was to disqualify the two teams whose activity drove the issue.
In the end the best route with the cleanest signal was simply disqualifying the gamed metrics and the teams from compensation this month.
This month marks a turning point for the Rootstock Collective delegate programme.
After extensive work with our governance facilitator Anode, we are moving away from a competitive tiered structure toward a collaborative, threshold-based model — one where delegates are rewarded for contributing to the ecosystem’s success, not for outscoring each other.
More on the new model below. First, the results.
May 2026 Results
Delegate
Delegators
Voting Power
Amount (USDRIF)
DAOStar
5
172,850
630
DAOPlomats
18
153,710
599
SEEDGov
2
140,410
567
Curia
4
140,350
536
Axia Network
6
211,430
504
ChronoTrigger
15
160,130
473
Tané
2
140,200
441
Total distributed: 3,750 USDRIF
Compensation will be processed via a dApp proposal as per usual.
Two delegates did not qualify this month due to not meeting the minimum delegation threshold. Eligibility criteria are listed below.
What changed and why
The previous structure paid 6 delegates across Gold and Silver tiers based on a competitive score. The problem: competition between delegates created the wrong incentives - optimising for metrics rather than governance quality.
The new model is collaborative. Every delegate who clears the eligibility threshold gets paid. The total pool (3,750 USDRIF/month) is distributed among all qualifying delegates, with a soft taper - meaning the difference between the top and bottom slot is no more than 30%. No one is left out for finishing 7th.
Eligibility criteria
To qualify each month, a delegate must meet all of the following:
Minimum 50,000 stRIF delegation
90% or more of proposals voted
90% or more of votes with written rationale
Minimum 3 hours read time on the forum
Minimum 5 likes received
Scoring is conducted monthly by Anode. Results are published here each month.
Offboarding
Delegates may be removed from the programme for:
Confirmed gaming of metrics
Sustained inactivity
Peer vote by the delegate group
The proposal on-chain will be live today. Onwards!
We would like to ask for a clarification on the eligibility criteria. The conclusion from the discussion in the New Delegate Compensation scheme thread appears to differ from what was published in this update, which means the results would look different depending on which criteria are actually being applied.
Looking at the May results, it seems the compensation was still calculated based on the discussion thread conclusion rather than the criteria listed here. For example, if the 5 likes minimum from this update were applied, some delegates who qualified in May would not have. That’s where our confusion comes from.
We just want to make sure we all have a shared understanding of which criteria are in effect going forward, especially since the delegate community spent time discussing and voting on these parameters together. @tamlerner@Raphael_Anode
Hey Team, last I remember during the delegate call as well, it was discussed that likes will be given 0 weightage and the same was followed for May, but in the latest post it seems like a minimum of 5 likes a delegate has to receive? @Raphael_Anode please do weigh in here. Thanks.
Worth commenting before we start reading the next few months of data:
We are layering more than one change at once. The compensation scheme is new, but also the budget is being halved, and the broader crypto market sentiment has cooled off noticeably, which on its own tends to naturally slow builder and delegate activity. If participation softens over the coming months, we should be careful not to read that as a failure of the tapering design when the budget reduction and market conditions are likely weighting a lot as well.
Lets give this model a fair window to prove itself before anyone draws conclusions about its mechanics.
If Clarity Act passes in US Senate, we should see a heavy fog of uncertainty get lifted and crypto market sentiment pickup. If this legislation fails in the next ~1 month, markets may remain heavy till Q4.
