Delegate Statement Template

Governance Delegate Statements
,
1124

Name (organization or individual)

Wallet Address or ENS

  • 0x2580181E77feeC62486A06C314DD9BFcAE1a6946

Tally Profile URL

Neutra Finance aims to make risk-hedged, sustainable investment strategies easily accessible for anyone, anywhere through automated strategy vaults. We strive to make this process simple and easy so that anyone who wants to protect their funds and earn stable returns in any market condition can do so. Upon depositing their capital into our vaults, users can sit back and earn APY above market standards on high-performing DeFi products while the strategy will do the rest, such as optimizing returns, rebalancing, and managing liquidation risk.

What area are you most interested in contributing to? choose up to two tags:

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

  • The Arbitrum DAO should be growth-oriented in choosing to build and work with partners that are going to bring users, transactions, and volume to the ecosystem. Rather than distributing the tokens for the sake of distributing them, liquidity mining should occur in extremely targeted ways and spend then as wisely as possible.
  • Arbitrum already has products that people care about, and traction that other chains cannot follow. The launching of the $ARB token would be an opportunity to bring more users and more products that could integrate themselves with the already-existing infrastructure. These money legos will prove themselves the potential to build a castle, and only with that goal in mind should Arbitrum enable its voters to delegate and vote with the newly-launched token.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  • Uniswap planned to use Flipside to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties. Although the program outline and funding was fine, the proposal was contentious because it gave Flipside crypto too much control over allocating UNI to bounties and oversight of the entire program.
  • For instance, Flipside had 3/7 seats on the allocation committee and 1/3 seats on the Oversight committee. There was also concern since none of the other analytics service providers were involved in the proposal.
  • This proposal flew under the radar but at the 11th hour got very heated. Large votes from university clubs supported the proposal since they would get a seat on the allocation committee. However, Dune and Leshner spoke up about the issue because of the centralization of power and favor of one service provider.
  1. How would you vote?
    • For
  2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
    • There are two approaches that could be taken to build consensus: (1) add additional third parties to the allocation and Oversight committees, or (2) reduce the funding for the program with the understanding that it will be increased if the program is successful. The first option reduces the reliance on one partner, while the second option would allow the partner to show they are good stewards and should be trusted to have more control.
  3. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
    • It is not practical to have a DAO vote on every matter, so some centralization of authority is necessary at some level. The DAO can provide some limited authority to committees that allow them to spend up to a certain level, engage with new partners, take emergency actions, etc. Committees are ultimately accountable to the DAO and the authorities and funding for a committee or project should reflect that.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

Issue Overview:
FEI RARI Hack Reimbursement: In April 2022 Rari was hacked for 80M, a vote was passed to reimburse those affected. Then in May 2022 another vote to refund the Rari hacked was brought forward this time it was not passed.

Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?

  1. Full Reimbursement
  2. No Reimbursement
  3. Split Reimbursement
  • While proactive security measures are always preferable to being hacked and losing funds, history has shown that attacks and hacks have become as more cunning and clever as the security measures have become. The protocol that loses the users’ funds is ultimately responsible for that loss and should work to reimburse users.
  • However, full and immediate reimbursement may not always be in the best interests of the protocol, depending on the amount of funds lost. One possibility is to reimburse affected users over time, so the damage to the viability of the protocol is limited.
  • By taking a balanced approach, projects can demonstrate their commitment to their users while also reinforcing the importance of risk management in the DeFi space.

Languages I speak and write: English, Korean, Russian, Japanese

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: No conflict of interest.