I support exploring the evolution of this program to reward contributions beyond traditional delegate duties.
The Contributor Points system correctly identifies that research, integrations, and analytical tools provide outsized value. While rigid metrics could trigger Goodhart’s Law, the proposal needs example case studies of what constitutes different CP levels. @SEEDGov could publish retrospectives showing why contributions earned their scores - building precedent over time while maintaining evaluator discretion.
The competitive ranking for the top 15 spots could drive quality, but adding collaborative bonus points when delegates work together would prevent zero-sum dynamics. Consider a public tracking dashboard where delegates can log planned contributions at month-start for early SEEDGov feedback on CP alignment.
For vesting, I’d propose a partial lockup where 50% remains locked for governance (earning 1.2x rewards to offset volatility) while 50% stays liquid. Optimism’s strict one-year lockup policy has frustrated builders who can’t use grants for operations or even as collateral - we shouldn’t repeat this mistake with delegates who have real costs.