The Recognized Delegates Program in the 1inch DAO has delivered notable value since its initial launch as a pilot (around 2023) and subsequent renewals, including the successful 12-month extension approved in April 2025 via [1IP-76]
Key Achievements
Professionalized and Sustained Governance Participation
The program has successfully attracted and retained five high-quality, experienced delegates with cross-DAO expertise. This includes continuing Tier 3 delegates DAOplomats and Anode (former StableLab), alongside additions like Curia, FranklinDAO, and Arana Digital. These entities consistently meet or exceed the program’s rigorous standards, providing reliable oversight even in periods of lower overall DAO activity.
Incentivized High-Quality Contributions
Delegates have actively contributed to forum discussions, provided detailed vote rationales, participated in working groups, and driven or supported key initiatives. Examples include treasury diversification/yield generation ideas, staking updates, liquidity enhancements, and revenue redirection proposals
Promoted Decentralization and Community-Led Governance
By incentivizing professional, independent delegates, the RDP has helped maintain governance quality and momentum amid broader 2025 trends of declining proposal volume, voter turnout, and increased concentration of power in professional actors. It has encouraged delegation of Unicorn Power (UP) to competent representatives & strengthening protocol health.
Cost-Effective Model
The structure has proven efficient compared to peer DAOs (e.g., far lower annual spend than Arbitrum’s ~$2.7M or Uniswap’s ~$1M programs), while delivering consistent, high-impact input at a fraction of the cost.
These outcomes have helped professionalize 1inch DAO governance, reduce collective coordination costs, and ensure diligent representation of token-holder interests.
As the current term progresses and we are nearing the next iteration, what are the community’s thoughts on next steps for the program?
-
How has the RDP performed in your view over the past months—any specific contributions or areas of impact worth highlighting?
-
Should we consider adjustments (e.g., tier thresholds, compensation levels, added qualitative metrics like proposal authorship or working-group leadership)?
-
With ongoing treasury/revenue discussions, how might future funding tie into protocol revenue streams or other sustainability mechanisms?
-
Are there emerging needs (e.g., more focus on certain working groups, encouraging smaller/new delegates, or performance transparency tools) that the program could address moving forward?