Delegate Statement Template

Governance Delegate Statements
,
666

Hunter
0x06B4233e1392B6b9a687885DA3f00b3A5914B23F

  • Improving Governance participation
  • Supporting Infrastructure

I have been following Arbitrum since 2021, I have the growth of this chain and its scalability use cases. The amazing fact that despite high volumes, the chain is almost gasless. Before the crash of FTX, I found out that the exchanges provided gasless withdrawals using Arbitrum. My stance is to actually promote decentralization and stop the rise of a monopolized set of delegates who may have a different goal in mind. My plan is to use my community and raise up loyal and trustworthy holders of Arbitrum that will vote for a right consensus. Also use my influence to attract more projects and incentivize more people into the use of the chain through transactions, transfers, minting et al

On the case of a Sample voting issue 1
Against
Although the initial plan was to distribute the grants to the required parties, The goal of a DAO is decentralization as stated in the name. If a small group is given power, it affects the future of the DAO immensely. As I stated earlier, the aim of a DAO is to prevent bad actors from gaining a centralized form of power.
In the case of the tradeoff, It is the community that should have power of proposals, if centralization is brought in, it may foster growth and less contention, but it may tend towards quick profits over long term sustainability.

Sample Case 2
Split Reimbursement

It is imperative that the DAO provide security or measures to prevent maximum loss in a worst-case scenario, those affected should be reimbursed but the reimbursement of the affected protocol should be rejected but a huge leak affects the chain in general and causes panic in the greater crypto community.

Thatā€™s why, depending on the case like FEI, I think the best thing to do is to reimburse money to those affected, maybe under a staking protocol or the DAO can get down to work to look after the interests of its users.

I speak and write English very fluently.

I hereby affirm I do not have any conflicts of interests as regards this project or any other

1 Like
667

Name (organization or individual): Castle Capital (organisation)

Wallet Address or ENS: castlecapital.eth (arb)

Tally Profile URL: Tally | Atomist

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

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg ā€” how aggressive should we be in liquidity mining, what is the goal of the DAO

  1. Supporting technical upgrades to the ecosystem
  2. Incentivising reach, retention, and revenue of protocols within the ecosystem
  3. Incentivising the building of tools, and educational resources for the ecosystem
  4. Guiding decentralisation of the ecosystem

Liquidity mining should be kept to the bare minimum wherever possible to dissuade mercenary capital farming DAO tokens. Token emissions themselves should have positive effects much further than incentivising TVL on-chain, for instance by being directed primarily to grants for the building of tools and resources for the ecosystem. When token emissions are to be used for incentivising protocol usage, a framework should be created to ensure distributors of these emissions are building sustainable models around their own products to incentivise their reach (new users). The product offering itself should be capable of retaining that captured reach (user base) and generating its own revenue, allowing it to grow and prosper sustainably without relying on further emissions.

Please share your stance on issues that were raised previously, in other communities, as described below:

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview

  1. How would you vote?

Against

  1. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
  • Separate the proposal into a solely Community-Analytics focused scenario and away from treasury/capital management (singular-focused proposals should be the standard);
  • Segment grant amounts into shorter time periods with set measurable objectives based on the Reach and Retention of the outputs;
  • One way to improve transparency, accountability, and alignment of goals would be the establishment of a public, crowd-sourced task board. Although undoubtedly imperfect initially, the distribution process can be iteratively improved over time.

For example:

  1. Starting by requesting small tasks from multiple third parties to find those that are the best fit
  2. Increasing size and discretionary freedom of use of funds after successful cases
  3. Using a KPI-based distribution system to increase accountability, trust and promote an over-delivery culture

Crowdsourcing and assigning appropriate reward amounts for tasks which are aligned with the UNI objectives sourced from the community would be a great long term goal

  1. How would you approach the tradeoff between the centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?

We believe in centralisation until product-market fit is found, as long as the best authority is leading ā€”for this example, I cannot comment on whether Uniswap properly explored all Analytics options in their selection of Flipside. This could also be achieved in a distributed way where multiple providers were given the initial opportunity and grants were accelerated based on expertise and competent outputs as time progressed.

Voting Issue 2 (Rari hack reimbursement)

Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?
i.e should parties be reimbursed for an exploit or not? (Please choose one of the below options and then elaborate upon your reasoning)

Split Reimbursement

  • This is mainly on a case-by-case basis, but when the protocol has a large enough treasury to facilitate such a reimbursement, it should definitely be explored. However, a DAO must also ensure it can continue to operate after such a reimbursement. Other mechanisms such as escrowed or vested reimbursements can also be explored to limit damage to the DAO (these mechanisms work only as long as the DAO generates revenue).
  • Another route would be a debt token which can be freely traded on the market, where the team buys it back. This is a very transparent and market-oriented way to solve debt obligations.
  • Exploits are a huge issue for the industry and how DAOs react to them will imprint their reputation for years to come. Nonetheless, it should also be considered that multiple insurance avenues are available, and all users of smart contracts must consider the risks in the first place.

Languages we speak and write:

English, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, German, and Korean

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

There are no conflicts of interest that would prevent us from using our best judgments. All interests align fully with the Arbitrum ecosystem ā€” any member working in the space is working within the Arbitrum ecosystem itself.

11 Likes
668

Name: Armana Kuatzhanova

Wallet Address or ENS: 0xf215EaB151E8A00835E0BF25b3A6D707D30A96Aa

Tally Profile URL: Tally | Armana

I am interested in Improving Governance participation and NFT development on Arbitrum.

The level of aggressiveness in liquidity mining should depend on the specific goals and risk tolerance of the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) involved. Liquidity mining is a strategy in which users provide liquidity to a decentralized exchange or liquidity pool in exchange for rewards, usually in the form of tokens.

If the goal of the DAO is to incentivize users to provide liquidity and increase the liquidity of a specific token or pool, then it may be appropriate to be more aggressive in liquidity mining. However, if the DAO is focused on long-term sustainability and stability, then a more conservative approach may be necessary.

Ultimately, the goal of a DAO is to achieve its mission and objectives, which can vary widely depending on the specific DAO. Some common goals of DAOs may include decentralized governance, community building, promoting open-source development, or creating a new decentralized financial system. It is important for the DAO to determine its goals and align its liquidity mining strategy with those goals.

  1. For
  2. Nothing more
  3. The tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done is a complex and nuanced issue. On the one hand, centralized authority can provide clear direction and streamline decision-making, making it easier to accomplish tasks quickly and efficiently. On the other hand, a highly centralized structure can lead to a lack of diversity in perspectives and decision-making, which may result in blind spots, groupthink, and a decreased ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

To approach this tradeoff, it is important to consider the specific context and goals of the organization or group in question. Some questions to consider might include:

  • What is the specific task or project at hand, and what are the potential risks and benefits of centralization versus decentralization in this context?
  • What are the values and priorities of the organization or group, and how do these values align with different approaches to authority and decision-making?
  • What is the level of trust and collaboration among members of the group, and how might this impact the effectiveness of a centralized or decentralized structure?

In general, it may be beneficial to aim for a balance between centralization and decentralization, rather than adopting an extreme approach in either direction. This might involve creating clear lines of authority and decision-making, while also allowing for input and feedback from a diverse range of stakeholders. Additionally, it may be helpful to periodically reassess the structure and approach to authority in light of changing circumstances and feedback from members of the group.

  1. Full Reimbursement

I speak and write: English, Russian, Kazakh

1 Like
669

Name (organization or individual)

DappLooker

Wallet Address or ENS

0xC810B378BF193d8eAf63639Da6773BAfeaE11b71

Tally Profile URL

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

  • Supporting Infrastructure
  • Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

How would you vote?

Against

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

I suggest changing the allocation committee to 1/7 instead of the current 3/7. Having 3/7 as the maximum amount below a majority doesnā€™t make sense for a Data Analytics company that has introduced bounties.

How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?

The tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done is a complex issue, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, several approaches could help strike a balance between the two.

One approach is delegating decision-making power to those closest to the task at hand. By empowering people to make decisions, they can act quickly and respond to changes in the business environment. This approach can help the organization stay nimble and responsive to the needs. However, it requires clear guidelines, expectations, and training and support to ensure that the delegated authority is used effectively.

Another approach is to establish a clear hierarchy of decision-making authority. By creating a structured decision-making process, the organization can ensure that the appropriate people at the appropriate level make decisions. This approach ensures consistency and alignment with the organizationā€™s goals and values. However, it can also slow down decision-making and create bureaucracy, which can hinder agility.

Ultimately, the best approach will depend on the specific context and goals of the organization. Itā€™s important to carefully consider the tradeoffs between centralization and decentralization of authority and assess the organizationā€™s needs and culture to find the right balance.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

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

  1. Split Reimbursement

Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.

Split Reimbursement

Users should feel safe entrusting their funds to protocols. Thatā€™s why reimbursement is the right policy. Users are not to blame if protocol management missed something and there were exploits/backdoors.

However, reimbursing everyone will set a precedent: projects can be scammers and do their own hacks of their protocols. Thatā€™s why I think that most protocols should insure themselves to be able to cover costs, at least partially.

Also, there should be strict controls and security checks on smart contracts. With an audit, the protocol should be allowed to operate.

Languages I speak and write:

English, Hindi

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

No conflicts of interest.

2 Likes
670

BillyRayBusiness - twitter
0x597d861cf0ad5c0ad82574998bacc0d41e7ca717
Tally | Tednet0
im most interested in Supporting IRL Arbitrum community gatherings

Liquidity mining is a popular strategy used by DAOs to incentivize liquidity providers and reward community members for contributing to the platform. The aggressiveness of liquidity mining can depend on a DAOā€™s goals and risk tolerance. A more aggressive approach to liquidity mining may lead to faster growth, but it may also increase volatility and risk.

Previous issues raised in other communities can vary widely, but some common ones include concerns about transparency, governance, and security. DAOs can address these issues by implementing transparent decision-making processes, strong security protocols, and community-driven governance structures.

Overall, the goals of a DAO and the approach to liquidity mining should be aligned with the needs and priorities of its community. DAOs can benefit from incorporating feedback and input from community members to ensure that their strategies and goals reflect the values and interests of the wider ecosystem.

1.For
2.Nothing more
3.The tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done is a common challenge for any organization, including DAOs. On one hand, centralization of authority can provide clear leadership and decision-making, leading to faster execution and more efficient use of resources. On the other hand, too much centralization can stifle innovation, limit participation, and lead to decision-making that does not reflect the needs and priorities of the wider community.

  1. Full Reimbursement
    Imma speak on Italian and a little Eng
672

Hi all!
My name is Dmitriy and I am a part of remarkable team of crypto-enthusiasts BlackAmberTeam (BAT). The goal of our team and me in particular is to be useful in formation and development of young crypto-projects regardless of their scale and ambitions, as well as to help newbies and not quite prepared cryptans in understanding and development in any field of cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

Wallet Address 0x6e990E1044C3B7a4DacDE509de73b46f643FD013

Tally Profile URL Tally | 0x6e99...D013

At the beginning of our journey, our team was writing smart contracts. Gradually it started to take over our minds and we started testing ecosystem products. Itā€™s very exciting. It will continue to be in the future. It has to do with supporting infrastructure.

My three areas of interest are as follows:
DeFi development on Arbitrum.
Improving participation in management
Supporting infrastructure.

My position on the overall goals of DAO:
The goal of DAO in my opinion is to override the human element in making poor decisions that are intended to cause short or long term harm, both financially and to the community.
AMA and IRL meetings are a good way to accomplish this.

Examples of voting:

Voting question
1- Strongly opposed
2- Such a significant allocation for one Flipside should not be possible. My suggestions: use the veto power in the distribution committee to create an environment in which the distribution of awards cannot be manipulated for their own purposes.
3- I think this is a big problem that every DAO has to deal with. In this scenario.
accounts that are first or have money can dominate the vote. I think a board made up of respected members of the community might be able to resolve this issue.

Voting issues are 2 - no reimbursement.

Languages spoken and written: English, German, Russian.

I hereby certify that I have no conflict of interest that would prevent me from using my common sense to work for the development of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

1 Like
673

Name : Mohammad Yudi Nurrofiq

Wallet Address or ENS 0xfA24Ed88437E25e795C2281AB066Fef4d99DB976

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • NFT development on Arbitrum
  • Gaming development on Arbitrum

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  • 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.

Prompts to Answer:

  1. How would you vote?
    Against
  2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
  3. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?

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.

Prompts to Answer:

Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?
i.e should parties be reimbursed for an exploit or not? (Please choose one of the below options and then elaborate upon your reasoning)

  1. Split Reimbursement

Languages I speak and write: Rus, Eng

674

Name (organization or individual)

ENS Cryptogenik.eth

Tally Profile URL (Cryptogenik on Tally)

I am most interested in contributing to?

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • NFT development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  • Uniswap planned to use Flipside to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties. Although the program outline and funding were 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 a 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.

Prompts to Answer:

  1. How would you vote? Against
  2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
    I would suggest that program be formed that would allow for multiple service providers to compete for rewarding bounties and an oversight watchdog committee could watch the program in case is started to underperform or misappropriate
  3. How would you approach the tradeoff between the centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
    A small group can execute quickly, which is both good and bad. Giving a small team the ability to execute while a second group prevents them from executing too quickly provides a checks and balances approach to optimize operations.

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.

Prompts to Answer:

Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?
i.e should parties be reimbursed for an exploit or not? (Please choose one of the below options and then elaborate upon your reasoning)

  1. Split Reimbursement
    Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.
    If the exploit was novel in nature, a partial reimbursement should be done in order to regain trust while the community would understand that this exploit had never been seen before.

However, if it was a simple exploit due to a dumb mistake, full Reimbursement should be executed quickly or else trust could be totally destroyed.

Languages I speak and write:
English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I love Arbitrum and think they flesh out the Ethereum ecosystem - I have participated in a DAO that has built an NFT Marketplace on Arbitrum. I will want to see that more attention is brought to the DAO that Iā€™m in. I will not shill it to the best of my ability other than here itā€™s NEONRAIN :grin: #ArbitrumRocks

675

Name: @lastpiece.nft (individual, twitter)
ENS: standpoint.eth
Tally profile: Tally | standpoint.eth

What area are you most interested in contributing to?

  • Public Goos Funding
  • Supporting infrastructure

Stance on overall goals for the DAO:

  • Promoting community engagement and delegate participation (community calls, town halls, community-led initiatives, rewards programs, engagement incentivization)
  • Promoting decentralization and democratization of the ecosystem (e.g. inclusion of diverse voices)
  • Increasing and retaining liquidity (incentives, partnerships, etc.)
  • Supporting the development and growth of the ecosystem (provide funding to support the development of new projects and initiatives, hackathons, grant programs, etc.)
  • Supporting public goods (education programs, research and development, public infrastructure, etc.)

Sample Voting Issue 1:
I would vote against the proposal because it gives too much power and control in the hand of one entity, defeating the purpose of governance decentralization.
I would amend the proposal in such a way that the allocation remains balances enough to avoid centralization.

Sample Voting Issue 2:
Thatā€™s a difficult one. Not reimbursing those affected would cause a problem of user retention as it could create frustration and friction amongst the community, some might be core users. On the other hand, reimbursing would weaken the DAO Treasury and this could take years to recover, which would have an impact on the long term.

Thank you for considering my application!

676

Name: Hai Dong Ngo
Wallet Address:0x5c5f8a3B9b6ee1359BB9587b1dD69996EE5Dcc5d
Tally Profile URL:No use
Twitter:tomdongtomdong
ā€¢ Public Goods funding

Sample Voting Issue 1:
1 - Against
2 - Flipside had 1/7 seats on the allocation committee
3 - Voting for a limited time. Everyone has the right to attend. Unanimous majority opinion.

Sample Voting Issue 2
1 - Full Reimbursement
When you get hacked, this is obvious. You need to be reimbursed. At that time, everyone will believe in the system, and develop the outstanding system together.

Languages I speak and write: English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: I donā€™t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent me from using my best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

677

Name: Alexey (Individual)
Wallet: 0x5e02482B5F22D9260aE90960A94765d9EBD97346

Twitter: @terequell
Tally: Tally

What area are you most interested in contributing to?
Im intresting to development Web3 apps based on Arbitrum and sure i wanna to improve your Arbitrum SDK wroten on TypeScript. My basic occupation is frontend developer with 3+ yrs experience so i have some chances to improve it.

I think the main goal of the DAO is provide comfortable experience for users. At the moment user which doesnt have any crypto-experience cannot easily enter in crypto world. So i believe that main goal is build tools for peoples.

My opinion about Issue 1: I think that you can outstaff attracting new users to your project only in case you sooo little company/startup. Otherwise, i think you should believe only yourself.
So, answer for the first question is Against.

My opinion about Issue 2:
As an usual human sure i would like to answer that Rari have to return funds to all people. But we live in real world, and i think that the company return funds only to primal investors. Iā€™am dont sure, but maybe thereā€™re was a row in invest contract that in case of hack startup should try to return all money to primal investors.

Languages I speak and write: English
Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: No any conflicts

P.S. Feel free to reach me by email, maybe you need an experienced frontend developer, who knowsā€¦

678

Name Gethsun

Wallet Address or ENS 0x3535448e2aaa9efb9f575f292c904d383eda9352

Tally Profile URL: Here

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

  • Public Goods funding
  • Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
I think more vigor should be directed towards encouraging developers to choose and stick to ARbitrum this will be a sure way to ensure steady growth of the ecosytem as this will have an exponential effect from user numbers onboarding, easy way is through incentives as already the platform is doing great on Txn speeds & gas fee which have proved effective in user growth & retention.

For
Against

No tradeoffs between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?

  1. Full Reimbursement

Language English

679

Hello, my name is Emmanuel and I have been active in the crypto sector for a while. Iā€™ll respond to your inquiries as follows:

Name: Emmanuel Emuobowho

Wallet address;
0xE6E07AE750AabD6315f8906F6907c49A677Dd0f6

Interests:
Iā€™m really interested in promoting infrastructure growth and enhancing the protocolā€™s decentralization.

Stance on DAOā€™s overarching objectives: In my opinion, DAO should pursue its objectives in a balanced manner, including by being aggressive in its liquidity mining while also giving top priority to the platformā€™s security and sustainability.

Stance on issues that have previously been brought up in other communities: I think itā€™s crucial to carefully evaluate the concerns and suggestions of different communities and to use a collaborative approach to address these.

680

Name: Maria

Wallet address: 0xE25b7baD45C7738A697bE20b4a812cacAe7fBB91

Tally: Tally | 0xE25b...BB91

What area are you most excited to contribute to? Choose up to two tags:

DeFi development on Arbitrum.
Improving participation in governance
Please share your position on the overall goals of DAO:

Fund innovation and the public good using Arbitrum technology
Allocate governance authority in the hands of stakeholders critical to ecosystem growth
Maintain Arbitrum as an open source, decentralized and censor-resistant platform to scale Ethereum and develop borderless dApps for the next billion users.
Sample Vote Question 1 - UniSwap/Flipside Bounty
Against
To ensure fairness, there should be an open bidding process so that any organization can bid to ensure competitiveness and fairness. There should be no more than one seat on the allocation committee for each analytics vendor, and at least two seats should be reserved for independent personnel. In addition, Flipside should not have a seat on the oversight committee. In addition, a decentralized Uniswap v3 LP position management solution (e.g., Arrakis Finance) should be implemented to avoid relying on one organization to safeguard assets.

To strike a balance between efficiency and decentralization in DAO management, a top-down approach is needed to allocate decision-making authority. This can be achieved through the following steps:

Create ad hoc working groups in the sectors that matter most to the DAO.
Select subject matter experts to manage the workforce within the constraints set by the DAO, including budget and individual allocations.
Decide on issues beyond the limits at the DAO level, and allow the DAO to replace workforce managers if sufficient consensus is reached.
Sample Voting Question 2 - FEI RARI Hacking Reimbursement
Separate reimbursement.
First of all, management decisions are final, unless significant new information becomes available, in which case a new proposal can be made for the same decision.

In an ideal world, full reimbursement is the gold standard, allowing the protocol to continue. However, the FEI RARI hack was so extensive that a full refund essentially means that the project cannot continue. Given that FEI RARI is great for the market, I would suggest split reimbursement to support the project and position it for potential hypergrowth in the next cycle to make the victims more than full.
Languages I speak and write: English, German, Russian.
Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
No conflict

681

Name: Franz (individual)
Wallet Address: 0x5b33eA56369305dEa5b451c16b588E4cD6360baf
Tally Profile URL:

Fields of interest: DeFi development on Arbitrum, NFT development on Arbitrum

My stance on overall goals for the DAO:

No protocol, such as UniSwap, should gain a significant power/ control.
Any provider, such as flipside, shouldnā€™t gain more than 1 seat. This would provide us with a broad participation of many parties.

How would I vote:

1 - against
2 - amendments = fewer seats for one single party
3 - major changes need to be approved by at least 75%, whereas smaller changes require just a simple majority e.g 50%+1

  1. Split reimbursement - I believe, if we reimburse 100% of exploited funds, it would lead to a less carefully behaviour. Due to that reason, I would vote for a 50% reimbursement.
1 Like
683

Name:Hamdi Ahmad
Address: 0x424D62ee8be35119af743C712d08617F192273cE
Areas of interest:Improving Governance participation
Supporting Infrastructure
Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:**
As Vitalik said large token holders (individual or a company) has too much influence on the vote. I think voting system should be like this:
Anyone with more than 5 ARB will be able to vote but it will has a impact of 1. Well whales could spread 100 ARB to thousands of wallets but it will cost them least $0.50 each transaction.
I think main usage for the ARB token should be to decentralize the rollup. As you can agree Arbitrum right now is somewhat centralized. I am not a tech person but as i have read Sequencer could be decentralized with token (by giving the person running an sequencer small ARB rewards). Overall giving everyone the power of being in the Arbitrum Security Council is cool.

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
I would propose a similar vote with other parties.

How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
In my openion ,the ability to get things done matters more to early stage DAOs, as often times things get stuck in a loop of repetitive debates for a long time, while the immediate objectives and goals of the proposal take a back seat.

Ultimately, on these issues is guided by a commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and responsible of the resources and assets entrusted to the DAO. As a delegate, I would work tirelessly to ensure that the communityā€™s interests are represented and that the DAO continues to thrive and grow over the long term.

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

Whole situation seems very compilacted as it impacted both individual victims and DAOā€™s. I think giving individuals FEI and giving DAOā€™s DAI looks very unfair. There shouldnt be a split. Also Iā€™m not a fan of giving small balance victims more and whales less. Everyone should get their payback equal.

In my openion ,the decision of whether or not to reimburse parties affected by an exploit should be based on a number of factors, including the severity of the exploit, the impact on the community, and the feasibility of reimbursement. In some cases, full reimbursement may be appropriate if the exploit was particularly damaging or if it was the result of a systemic issue within the platform. However, in other cases, it may not be feasible or appropriate to provide full reimbursement.

To approach this tradeoff, I would advocate for the following:

Implement a multi-signature approval system for critical decisions, involving a diverse group of stakeholders.
Encourage community involvement in the decision-making process through open forums, discussions, and voting.
Establish a rotating committee structure, where members from different backgrounds and expertise can contribute to various aspects of the DAO.
Languages I speak and write:Arabic(native)
English (fluant)

BEST WISHES ARBITRUM

2 Likes
684

Name Daniel Moldavsky

Wallet Address 0xf823Ff7ae295DddBD58dB857BCcCfD43F657cF27

Tally Profile URL

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

Public Goods funding
DeFi development on Arbitrum
Gaming development on Arbitrum
Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
I think overal goals of DAO is establishing justice with financial transparency.

Please share your stance on issues that were raised previously, in other communities, as described below:

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Against

No amendments, just cancel it altogether.

The solution is reputational avatars 11, which solves most if not all DAO participation and token-weight voting problems.

It depends entirely where the reimbursement would come from. If this were a case of introducing a self-executable on-chain transfer block on the hacked amount and reminting into the damaged partiesā€™ accounts, I would vote yes. If the tokenholders and other network participants were to pay for this, no. Socializing losses across a large number of people is not acceptable when it is clear that very small circles of people are responsible for both insecure code and stealing the money.

Languages I speak and write:

English, Russian, Interslavic

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

no conflicts of interest

1 Like
685

Name (organization)
BlockPI Network

Wallet Address or ENS
blockpi.eth

Tally Profile URL

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

  • Supporting Infrastructure
  • Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

BlockPI is a high-performance and globally distributed RPC Network. Built and supported by the community, BlockPI has been dedicated to supporting the Arbitrum community with the best RPC infrastructure. By the date of our submission of this application, our free public RPC has processed more than 2 billions of requests for users on Arbitrum every month.

To better support Arbitrum developer community, our Startup Program offer up to $1000 credits to use our services, for more details, please visit my tally profile.

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

The concept of DAO is so fascinating and welcomed by people is because of its decentralization, transparency and democracy. Therefore, among all its qualities, the most fundamental goal of a DAO is to create a decentralized system where decision-making is vested in the hands of the community but not a centralized authority. This ensures that the governance of the DAO is democratic and transparent. Meanwhile, DAO is supposed to promote a strong sense of community, foster collaboration, and foster relationship-building. DAO members should be able to communicate and work together towards common goals to achieve success.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  1. For

  2. I suggest reducing the proportion of Flipsideā€™s seats on the Oversight committee, as it is a supervisory body and should have less influence from those being supervised.

  3. Making trade-offs can be challenging, especially when weighing between the benefits and potential drawbacks of centralization.
    Centralization can ensure consistency of strategic goals by aligning decision-making with overall objectives and implementing them in a more cost-effective and less time consuming way.
    However, transparency, diversity and democracy are also important. So, to balance between the advantages and disadvantages of centralization of authority, there are several approaches we can use.
    a. We can introduce a dual-class vote structure, in which the voting power is weighted differently between the Flipsideā€™s vote and normal votes. Thus, Flipsideā€™s vote wonā€™t significantly affect the final results.
    b. We could incorporate specific and measurable milestones into the process. The subsequent payments and specific amount could be based on how the milestones are achieved.
    c. Installment payment could be another efficient method. We can split the token into several payments, so the voting power of Flipside will reduce gradually by time.

Sample Voting Issue 2

Split Reimbursement

First, to determine whether and how to reimburse the affected parties of a hack, the community should have a comprehensive analysis before making the final decision, which implies taking more factors, such as the hackā€™s severity, the scale of the hack, feasibility of reimbursement and community impact, the security issues behind the hack and etc, into consideration.

If the amount of loss, the security issues behind the hack or the community impact of the hack are very limited, then no reimbursement can be acceptable. In other cases, split reimbursement should be considered based on different usersā€™ cases. For those users who have followed the good security best practices and have taken necessary measures when the hack happened, they should get the full reimbursement from the platform or at least a big partial amount of reimbursement. While for those users who have neither followed the platformā€™s security best practices nor taken necessary measures, they should get less reimbursement from the platform.

Because in general, it is important to educate the users to have certain safety awareness and understand what necessary measures should be taken when under attack since there is no 100% guarantee that there will never be hacked. Meanwhile, it is also important for the platform itself to examine its potential security risks regularly.

Languages I speak and write:

English and Chinese

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
No

4 Likes
686

Hi there, my name is lijun888 and Iā€™ve been involved in the cryptocurrency space for quite some time now. Hereā€™s my response to the questions you asked:

Name : Daniyar Gabdullin
Wallet Address or ENS: whoim.eth
Tally Profile URL: Tally | whoim.eth

Area of interest: I am particularly interested in supporting infrastructure development and improving decentralization of the protocol.

Position on DAOā€™s overall goals: I believe that DAO should take a balanced approach in pursuing its goals, including being aggressive in liquidity mining while also prioritizing the security and sustainability of the platform.

Position on previously raised issues in other communities: I believe that it is important to carefully consider the concerns and feedback of various communities, and to take a collaborative approach in addressing these issues.

1 Like
687

outside39rus

0x79f57D49c39b2B89091c65b90d318741AE877da4

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

Public goods funding
DeFi development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg ā€” how aggressive should we be in liquidity mining, what is the goal of the DAO?
Please share your stance on issues that were raised previously, in other communities, as described below:
The main purpose of DAO is primarily to help in the development of the project and joint decisions that need to be taken depending on the situation in the market. For decisions to be correct and decentralized in DAO, it is necessary to have a large number of participants, it will allow to make decisions based on the opinions of participants, as well as to distribute more softly the number of tokens.
Also one of the important goals should be to support projects developing Arbitrum ecosystem, because the more quality ecosystem there will be more users and this is the growth and development.
As for liquidity mining, I think itā€™s a path that can lead to very unfortunate consequences if used aggressively and Iā€™m against it.

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview 783

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.
Prompts to Answer:

How would you vote?

Against

With these inputs just cancel

As I described above, I believe that a greater number of participants is necessary because the minimum number increases the likelihood of collusion, as we have seen in other DAOs

Sample Voting Issue 2:
Issue Overview:
Overview Link 1 2.3k
Overview Link 2 309

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.

Prompts to Answer:
Full refund.
I believe that the decision is made once, otherwise the whole point of voting is lost.
Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?

Languages I speak and write: English and Russian

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
Our team is public and one of its principles is honesty, therefore as one of the leaders of the team I am very well aware of the responsibility to the community, which entrusted to me and ensure a completely unbiased approach to the vote. During my 5 years in the industry I have proven myself to be a trustworthy person.

1 Like