hello,
I’m Mztacat, a Blockchain Researcher and web designer. A sophisticated crypto Enthusiast currently learning Solidity and Node js.
0x29029BbE90540245c3d05CdD52f06730dECCac2F
Sample Voting Issue 1:
Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
Public Goods funding:
Public goods are goods or services that benefit everyone and cannot be excluded from anyone, such as clean air or national defense. In the context of decentralized systems like blockchain, public goods funding can help support the development and maintenance of important infrastructure or protocols that benefit the entire ecosystem. By contributing to public goods funding, you can help ensure the long-term sustainability and growth of the ecosystem.
Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization:
Decentralization is a key feature of blockchain systems, as it allows for greater security, transparency, and resilience. However, achieving true decentralization can be challenging, especially in complex systems like Arbitrum. By improving tooling and protocol decentralization, you can help make the system more accessible and user-friendly, while also strengthening its security and resilience.
How would you vote?
Against.
While the idea of attracting new users through bounties is good, the proposal gives too much control to Flipside and its analytics service. The allocation committee and oversight committee should have more balance and representation, with other analytics service providers involved in the proposal. The centralization of power and favoring one service provider is not in the best interest of the Uniswap ecosystem.
What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
I would suggest adding more representation from other analytics service providers on the allocation and oversight committees to ensure balance and avoid centralization of power. The proportion of seats on the committees should also be reviewed to ensure fairness and representation.
How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
While it is important to have a central authority to make decisions and move things forward efficiently, it is equally important to ensure that the decision-making process is fair and inclusive. A balance should be struck between centralization of authority and inclusivity to ensure that the needs of the community are met and that the ecosystem continues to grow and thrive. In this case, the proposal should have been more inclusive and balanced in terms of representation on the committees, while still allowing for efficient decision-making and execution of the program.
Sample Voting Issue 2:
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.
How would you choose to handle this situation outside of the flipping of the vote?
I would choose to support split reimbursement. While it is unfortunate that Rari was hacked and individuals were affected, it is important to balance the needs of those affected with the needs of the larger community. Full reimbursement may not be sustainable or feasible for the ecosystem in the long term, while no reimbursement may be seen as unfair or unsympathetic to those affected. Split reimbursement can provide a compromise solution that addresses both needs.
Instances where I believe it is right to refund and which are not:
I believe it is right to refund individuals who have been affected by an exploit or attack that is outside of their control, particularly if the ecosystem is responsible for the vulnerability that was exploited. However, it is important to consider the long-term sustainability and feasibility of such refunds, as well as the impact on the larger community. Refunds should be balanced with the needs of the ecosystem and the community as a whole, and should not be seen as a free pass
Language i speak and write: English
Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I want to disclose that I am not affiliated with any specific organization or individual related to the Arbitrum ecosystem. As a guy who is interested in the development of the ecosystem, I do not have any conflicts of interest that would prevent me from using my best judgment to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.