Delegate Statement Template

Governance Delegate Statements
,
863

Name: Amir

Wallet Address or ENS: amir0.eth

Tally Profile URL: amir0.eth

Which areas are you interested in contributing to? You can choose up to two tags:

  • Public Goods funding
  • ReFi development on Arbitrum (Green Arbitrum)

Please share your perspective on the overall goals for the DAO:

In my opinion, while aggressively pursuing liquidity mining might not be the best approach, it is necessary at the start. We need to actively engage all sectors of the market and create sustainable platforms and users.

Regarding issues raised in other communities:

Sample Voting Issue 1: Uniswap & Flipside
I would vote against Uniswap. This move could lead to the centralization of power and create an unfair advantage for Flipside.

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

Sample Voting Issue 2: FEI RARI Hack
As a delegate, I would not support reimbursement for the Rari hack.

Languages I speak and write: English, Turkish, Azari, Persian

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: I have no conflicts of interest with Arbitrum. I strongly believe that public goods and ReFi are essential segments of every chain.

ARBITRUM! :blue_heart: :orange_heart:

1 Like
864

Name (organization or individual)
0x0nur (individual)

Wallet Address or ENS
0xA2A2602bC84371E6A7af8b88467E8b3f10aa7658

Tally Profile URL
Tally | 0x0nur.eth

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
  • Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg — how aggressive should we be in liquidity mining, what is the goal of the DAO?
DAO is not the purpose, it is the tool to achieve the community’s goals.
The main goal of DAO is to maintain and ensure the community trust in the effective and decentralised decision making. In other words, a DAO’s main goal should be to ensure all members believe that DAO works and will continue to work in the future.

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

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview

  • 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:

  1. How would you vote?
    Against

  2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

  • DAO proposals for grants should not be pegged to fiat, especially at these amounts. 25M USD grant over two years no matter the price of UNI is a very hard burden on UNI to carry. It should have been based on UNI.
  • Flipside should be introduced and doxxed (where needed) in the introduction.
  • It should be explained what is DAO’s interest in giving away bounties to user who has not touched Uniswap before. I personally doubt if people who has not touched Uniswap in web3 are the target audience for a bounty.
  • Pilot program data should be substantiated. What is the understanding from ‘retention’? Did they retain after pilot bounties ended, or did they hold on because there were more bounties?
  • DAO should have discussed multiple projects, maybe there could be multiple proposals from different projects, not just Flipside.
  • DAO paying for the project owner’s employee salaries, database and node management does not make sense.
  • Giving control of funds only to farm yield should be well thought of.
  • 3 people from Flipside in the allocation committee is not acceptable, not only because they are over-represented but also because Flipside’s all costs are reimbursed and their corporate interests are not aligned with the DAO. Seats should either consist of ethically unbiased opinion leaders and or DAO members that have aligned individual interests.
  1. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
    With proper checks and balances protecting the DAO’s interests, it could be accepted but very important that temporary deviations do not go against the principles, ideas and goals of the DAO, ehich brought the community together in the first place.

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. No Reimbursement

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

This is a textbook case showing the need for DAO Constitutions. I am a lawyer and in law, either in court judgment or jury verdict, same questions shall not be asked twice, unless there is material changes that revealed later which could have affected the decision. A well-structured DAO (either by code or community consensus) should not allow proposals to ask same questions based on same material facts. But if somehow asked, then the most recent DAO decision should be honored. I was not able to find the vetoed proposal on the web to check if there is any material difference to what the DAO said no and yes.
Ethically I am in favor of reimbursement in a hack of this nature, so personally it is a desired outcome for me. But preserving the trust in the DAO is much more important. Second proposal should have been clear in what it is asking or should not be allowed to ask the same question.

Languages I speak and write:
English, Turkish, Italian with (beginner Spanish and Swedish)

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
Diversity of opinions is critical to making progress and determining the future direction of the Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize and celebrate the fact that delegates will have diverse views and we both encourage and anticipate good-faith debates in the governance process. That being said, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent you from using your best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

I do affirm that I don’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.

2 Likes
865

Matthew wayne gouthro
0xefd463104Fc7160D925143d09807F48c24745C0F

Hi guys I am most interested in Gaming development on Arbitrum Nova as well as Defi Development like Gmx type protocols with orderbooks.

For sample too my though process would be as such ,

Full Reimbursement: This option would mean that all the parties affected by the hack would receive a complete refund of the funds lost. The advantage of this approach is that it would provide immediate relief to those who suffered losses, restoring their trust in the platform and possibly avoiding legal action. However, the downside is that it could set a precedent for future hacks, incentivizing users to take more risks and not take enough precautions when handling funds.

No Reimbursement: This option would mean that those who suffered losses would not receive any refund, which would put the responsibility on the users to manage their funds more securely. The advantage of this approach is that it would discourage risky behavior, encourage users to adopt best practices for securing their funds and possibly help prevent future hacks. However, the downside is that it could lead to a loss of trust in the platform, discouraging users from participating in it in the future.

Split Reimbursement: This option would mean that parties affected by the hack would receive a partial refund of their losses, while also sharing some of the responsibility for the hack. The advantage of this approach is that it would encourage users to take more responsibility for their funds and also provide some relief to those who suffered losses. However, the downside is that it could be seen as unfair by some parties, especially those who took significant precautions to secure their funds.

2 Likes
866

Name (organization or individual)
Camelot DAO (organization)

Wallet Address or ENS
0x2e3BEf6830Ae84bb4225D318F9f61B6b88C147bF

Tally Profile URL

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

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO

We believe that the Arbitrum DAO should primarily focus on two areas:

  1. Supporting the development of new and needed applications
  2. Helping onboard new users who would benefit from the applications on Arbitrum

As the native DEX and launchpad for new projects on Arbitrum, Camelot is uniquely positioned to help with both of these areas. Our Round Table Protocols represent the majority of applications on Arbitrum and together, they help make Arbitrum and Camelot a collaborative and supportive home for innovation.

Sample Voting Issue 1

  1. Against
  2. Such large DAO token allocations should generally only be made for programs which are overwhelmingly popular. The mere fact that the vote is nearly 50/50 should show that it probably shouldn’t pass. To make the vote less contentious, we would probably recommend reducing the payment schedule to monthly or quarterly instead of annually (making the DAOs upfront commitment smaller by an order of magnitude). We might even recommend introducing a trial period which is only continued if the trial hits certain performance metrics.
  3. DAOs should always try to maximize the accountability of individuals and entities that interact with them. Paying for services on a performance basis should almost always be preferred, and DAOs should try to structure compensation plans that align incentives. Especially in decentralized environments involving anonymous individuals, economic incentives must be aligned to ensure quality outcomes.

Sample Voting Issue 2

The first vote should have triggered a trustless execution of the hack repayment. It’s unclear what to do after two such votes when neither had executable code tied to their outcomes. Thus, we would never put such a monumental vote to governance without the executable code attached.

The reimbursement amount should be determined by the token holders as they have the long term interest of the project in mind. If executable code had been attached to the first vote, they would have fully reimbursed the hack victims. If token holders directly voted for this code to be executed, it would have been the right outcome.

Languages I speak and write
English, French

8 Likes
868

Name (individual): DanielM

Wallet Address: 0x71FCB55C7c7e43325C499E5F0041B917bf022E87

What area are you most interested in contributing to?
I would say Public Goods funding and improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

DAO is a key important element in our WEB 3.0. future. Real decentralization and responsible for their decision DAO participants the goal we strive to.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  1. Against
  2. The balance of voting power should be guaranteed.
  3. Initial equal and fair distribution between active participants, proving more power for useful for DAO actions. Strong DAO participants will be able to keep DAO healthy.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

  1. Split Reimbursement
    Based on contribution, parties involvement, and available funds. Perhaps reimbursing with vesting.

Languages I speak and write:

English, German, Ukrainian, Russian

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

no conflicts of interest

2 Likes
869

Name: MikRoyce (individual)

Wallet Address: 0x2FB2cAF32623089886e545788C007229C3E24416

Tally profile URL: Tally | MikRoyce

What area are you most interested in contributing to:

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • Public Goods funding

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
My stance will be to improve the protocol’s scalability, enhancing its security, and attracting more developers and users to the ecosystem. Ultimately, the DAO’s success will depend on its ability to create value for its stakeholders, including token holders, developers, and users, while upholding the principles of decentralization and community governance.

How would you vote? For

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
No amendments, it’s perfect

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 that can be applied universally. However, some general principles and strategies that can be helpful in approaching this tradeoff include the following:

  1. Balance delegation of authority with accountability: Delegating decision-making authority to a smaller group of individuals or a single person can improve efficiency, but it can also lead to abuses of power and lack of transparency. To mitigate these risks, it is important to establish clear lines of accountability and transparency in decision-making processes.
  2. Use technology to enable decentralized decision-making: Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are an example of how technology can be used to enable decentralized decision-making while still maintaining some degree of efficiency. DAOs allow for community-driven decision-making, and they can leverage the power of blockchain technology to enable transparent and secure voting processes.
  3. Foster a culture of collaboration and trust: Creating a culture of collaboration and trust can help ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the organization and its stakeholders. This can be achieved through open communication, shared goals and values, and a willingness to compromise and work together.
  4. Adapt the level of centralization to the context: The appropriate level of centralization will depend on the specific context and goals of the organization. In some cases, a more centralized approach may be necessary to achieve efficiency and effectiveness, while in others, a more decentralized approach may be more appropriate to ensure fairness and inclusivity.
    Overall, the key to balancing centralization of authority and the ability to get things done is to be intentional, transparent, and adaptable in decision-making processes, while always keeping the best interests of the organization and its stakeholders in mind.

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

  • Split Reimbursement: This approach would involve reimbursing a portion of the losses incurred by the affected users, while also placing some responsibility on the users to take adequate security measures. This approach could strike a balance between immediate relief and creating a precedent for future hacks. It could also incentivize users to take security measures seriously while also ensuring that the platform takes some responsibility for the security breach.

Languages I speak and write:
English and Spanish

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I am fully confident that I do not possess any conflicts of interest that would impede me from carrying out my duties in the most optimal manner possible.

2 Likes
870

Name (organization or individual)
Andressa Cabral
Wallet Address or ENS
0xBDC85F3d64165C1B28d782D5d13108D4961B1592
Tally Profile URL (create a profile here )

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

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • IRL Arbitrum community gatherings

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
Vote for problem 1
For.
I am in favor of this proposal. I believe that Uniswap is trying to attract new users to it and it is important that they earn rewards to encourage usage. However, I understand concerns about centralization and equity. So I think it’s important that analytic service providers are included in the process and that there is equity in the seats in allocation tracking and oversight. Also, I believe there should be some oversight and monitoring to ensure that rewards are distributed fairly. I am therefore voting in favor of this proposal on the condition that all relevant service providers are included in the process and that there is equity in the dinner seats.

  1. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
    I would make certain amendments to the proposal to make it less centralized. First, I would reduce the number of Flipside seats on the Allocation Committee to 1/3 and on the Oversight Committee to 1/7. This would allow other stakeholders more voice and equal opportunity. In addition, it would open up the proposal to other analytic service providers so that they could compete for seats on the allocation committee. This would improve transparency and confidence in the Uniswap program. Finally, Dune and Leshner could have seats on the oversight committee to ensure the proposal passes fairly.

  2. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
    I believe that DAO decisions should be made collaboratively. This means that all DAO participants must be given the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process and given opportunities to voice their opinions. This could include engaging analytics service providers so that everyone can verify the accuracy of the data, as well as involving campus clubs to ensure that everyone’s views are heard. However, I believe it is important to maintain transparency and avoid any form of centralization of power. This means that all seats on the allocation and oversight committee must be open access and must not be limited to a single individual.

Vote for problem 2:
I would choose option 3, Split Refund. In this solution, users who were affected by the hack would receive a partial refund. This would allow the company to recover from the damage sustained by the attack, while still offering some help to users. Split reimbursement could also be based on the number of users affected, as well as the severity of the damage each of them suffered. Users who suffered more severe losses could receive a larger refund. Additionally, Rari could consider using insurance funds to cover part of the damage, as well as encouraging users to take safety measures to prevent the same problem from occurring in the future.

Languages I speak and write:
Mother tongue Portuguese and English as a second language.

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I have no conflict of interest that prevents me from using my best judgment to operate in the best interest of furthering the Arbitrum Ecosystem.

2 Likes
871

Name: Kent Phillips

Wallet Address: kentphilly.eth

Tally | Kent Philly.eth

What area are you most interested in contributing to?

  • Improving Governance participation
  • Public Goods funding

Please share your stance on the overall goals for the DAO:

  1. Arbirtum’s DAO should continue to focus on making Ethereum accessible for everyone. Arbitrum is a public goods infrastructure L2 enablement platform to bring Web3, crypto, ReFi, NFTs, DAOs, and more to life for everyone on Earth. Continue to provide an amazing experience for anyone to tap into the Ethereum ecosystem with low costs and high speeds for a great user experience for even my mom.

  2. Arbitrum needs to slowly decentralize leadership as it continues to grow in influence as the leading Ethereum L2. Involve universities, non-profits, and diverse opinions that represent the true user population and not just crypto bros and JPG flippers.

  3. Lastly Arbritrum needs to focus on growing the AnyTrust chain ecosystem to achieve adoption outside of our current circles of influence. Expanding to organizations that are working to adopt Web3 and are currently embracing Web 2.5 and how hybrid blockchains could benefit their organizations.

P.S. Liquidity mining could be beneficial with the right approach. For example to spur AnyTrust ecosystem growth as well as to stimulate specific verticals within the Arbitrum ecosystem that have not taken off on their own (like DeFi), however, simply giving away equity has proven to not be successful alone (per Uniswap air drop research). The best practice today is to be targeted and specific with liquidity mining and to do it over time.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

1. How would you vote?
Against

2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

I agree with Saludiego201.eth that “Diversity of opinions and participants should be the main objective of a DAO” which is a public good. For specific amendments, I have 3 suggestions.

  1. I propose the allocation committee can only have 1 representative per organization.

  2. The Allocation Committee and Oversight Committee could consider adding rules that limit overlap with representatives between Committees if there are additional representatives available.

  3. I would suggest that Flipside propose at least one competitor for the DAO to review. Ideally, multiple analytics vendors (Dune, Flipside, +) could be given the same access to the grant if they can provide the same offering to the DAO.

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

Centralized authority is helpful to start an ecosystem and over time it should be moved to a decentralized authority that takes more time to get things done.

New projects and experiments need centralization to accomplish set goals. Public Goods ecosystems like Arbitrum require the decentralization of leadership and power to truly serve the people who use the ecosystem.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

  1. Split Reimbursement

I suggest an option with payouts that are evenly split across victim addresses, capped by the amount of damages for each victim. This results in a single max payout threshold, where victims falling below this threshold are fully repaid.

Investors cannot hold Web3 protocols responsible to make them 100% whole due to a hack since the investors were never promised this benefit from FEI RARI when they invested in the protocol. At the same time, the protocol should do their best to make investors whole. Hence the split payout.

Addresses that have already received hack compensation from Nexus Mutual are excluded.

Addresses have attempted to exploit this dynamic by splitting their cTokens across multiple addresses. These splits should not be respected,

P.S. I know too well what it’s like to lose in a hack. I lost 20 ETH in the Cream.Finance hack in 2021 and learned a good lesson, only invest what you can lose in DeFi without insurance.

Languages I speak and write:

  • English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

  • I do not have any conflicts of interest with Arbitrum. I am active across a variety of DeFi and Ethereum protocols. I have delegated my OP tokens and do not foresee any additional conflicts ahead if I am chosen as an Arbitrum Delegate

Thank you for your time :blue_heart::orange_heart:

2 Likes
872

Name (organization or individual) : joseph breitman (individual)

Wallet Address or ENS : 0x1048607203751D2129d09bB843E997980D4Db749

Tally : Tally | sbbbbb

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

  • Improving Governance participation
  • Supporting Infrastructure

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
As a firm believer in decentralization, I strongly advocate for the overall goals of the DAO to prioritize the long-term sustainability and success of not only the ARB token, but also the broader future of rollups. The DAO should play a crucial role in overseeing technical protocol and security upgrades, ensuring that the ecosystem remains healthy and secure. It is important to strike a balance between decentralization and the need for knowledgeable oversight, which is why a technical subcommittee could be established to assist with this governance aspect.

Regarding liquidity mining, while it can be useful in the short term for user acquisition, it should not become a permanent feature of any protocol as it may lead to unsustainable emissions. As for grants, they should be handled with care and accountability to ensure that builders are delivering on their promises, but they also offer a great opportunity for the development of much-needed tools and dApps.

Ultimately, the DAO should focus on creating a decentralized and sustainable ecosystem that empowers community members to participate in the growth and development of the rollup.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

Prompts to Answer:

  1. How would you vote?
    I would vote against the proposal.

  2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
    I would propose amendments to ensure that the allocation and oversight committees are more inclusive and that other analytics service providers are involved in the proposal.

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

I believe that the DAO should prioritize inclusivity and fairness over the ability to get things done quickly. While centralization of authority may seem like an efficient way to accomplish tasks, it can compromise the integrity of the system and create opportunities for abuse of power

Sample Voting Issue 2:

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. Full Reimbursement
    I choose Full Reimbursement because it is the most just and fair way to compensate the parties affected by the hack. However, the DAO should also conduct due diligence to ensure that the parties claiming reimbursement are genuine and not fraudulent. In instances where parties cannot prove their claim, no reimbursement should be made.

Languages I speak and write: : French, English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
Diversity of opinions is critical to making progress and determining the future direction of the
Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize and celebrate the fact that delegates will have diverse views and we both encourage and anticipate good-faith debates in the governance process. That being said, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent you from using your best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

2 Likes
873

Name: BCGApes

ENS: BCGApes.eth

Tally Profile URL: Tally | bcgapes.eth

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

  • Public Goods funding
  • DeFi development on Arbitrum

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  1. Against
  2. Transfer desired control back to UNI project
  3. Set goals, plan and execute.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

  1. No reimbursement Depends on nature of agreement.
1 Like
874

Name: Catchfire (individual)

Wallet Address or ENS catchfire.eth

Tally Profile URL Tally | catchfire.eth

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

  • Public Goods funding
  • Improving Governance participation

Languages I speak: English, Russian

1 Like
875

[quote=“Lemma, post:1, topic:31”]
Name (organization or individual)
ALKIA

Wallet Address or ENS
0xa4c10a4d9105d96f468024796A9A48e27B561FB9

Tally Profile URL (create a profile here )

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

  • IRL Arbitrum community gatherings
  • Supporting Infrastructure

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg — 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:

Sample Voting Issue 1:

Prompts to Answer:

  1. How would you vote? For
  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? Value decentralisation

Prompts to Answer:
2. No Reimbursement

Languages I speak and write:
French, English, Thai

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
None

1 Like
876

Darevik

0x41197865d5381085272E8b294d98db540504b65F

Areas of interest for contributing:

  • Public Goods funding
  • NFT development on Arbitrum
  • Supporting Infrastructure

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
The specific goals of the Arbitrum DAO would depend on the particular use case. Potential goals for a DAO should include providing a decentralized platform for governance, decision-making, and funding of a specific project or community, promoting transparency and accountability in the management of resources, or creating a new type of decentralized business model. Please share your stance on issues that were raised previously, in other communities, as described below:

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview

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:

  1. How would you vote?
  • For
  • [v] Against (My chose)
  1. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any? More transparency and avoid concentrating too much control in one hands.
  2. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done? Avoid overlap of power in a one sector and keep ability for a clear election.

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.

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. Full Reimbursement
  2. No Reimbursement
  3. [v] Split Reimbursement (My choose)
    Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.

Each of the options has its own pros and cons, and it ultimately depends on the platform’s priorities and values. A split reimbursement may be the most practical and reasonable option in this case, but the platform should also work to improve its security measures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Languages I speak and write: English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I confirm that I don’t involved in conflict of interest.
Diversity of opinions is critical to making progress and determining the future direction of the
Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize and celebrate the fact that delegates will have diverse views and we both encourage and anticipate good-faith debates in the governance process. That being said, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent you from using your best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem. I don’t any conflicts of interest.

2 Likes
878

Premia Delegate Application

Name (organization or individual) : DK (from Premia)

Wallet Address or ENS : dk.3anon.eth (0xAD16ebE6FfC7d96624A380F394cD64395B0C6144)

Tally Profile URL : Tally | dk.3anon.eth

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

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
My personal beliefs as well as core Premia tenets are outlined below, however as a representative of the Premia Community, all major decisions will be coordinated with the Premian Parliament (Elected Community Representatives), before any potentially conflicting votes are applied.

Main Objective: To maintain the competitive advantages that the Arbitrum Ecosystem currently occupies.

  1. Arbitrum has an extremely intelligent and vibrant DeFi community. In my opinion all innovation has been or is currently being deployed on Arbitrum. The interoperability of protocols is second to none other than potentially mainnet itself, we will only support proposals that further this entrenchment unhindered.
  2. Both in support of the developer relations that Offchain & Arbitrum provide, but also the level of documentation and polish of developer experience has led us to further commit to building in the Arbitrum Ecosystem, any proposals that continue to invest in these domains we will strongly support.
  3. The incentive ethos of Premia is to always reward long term participation over short sighted solutions and token mechanisms (however unfavorable they may be). This can be seen with our 10yr token emission schedule from the inception of the Premia platform. We will stand with all proposals that enforce long term growth over short term economic gain. However it is not directly outlined in the Arbitrum constitution or documentation, we believe based on historic interactions, this is also core to the Arbitrum ethos, favoring community building, rapport, and trust above all else.

Community, Security, Privacy, and Economic Sustainability are core values we strive to uphold. Investment Access, Open Markets, and Responsible Finance are key to our vision to achieve these values. In principle, the Premia Community will vote their delegation towards equality of wealth, equity of opportunity, & economic freedom rooted resolutions, and these tenets we believe coincide with the overall goals of the Arbitrum DAO, and we will do our part to protect these tenets.

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

Sample Voting Issue 1: Uniswap

Prompts to Answer:

1. How would you vote? : Against

2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any? : Uniswap Token Holders should elect the Oversight Committee. Instead of 10mm at once, it should be released in smaller quarterly amounts with more ongoing checks by oversight committee.

3. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done? : I have no problem with how the Allocation committee was set up, however the Oversight Committee should be all external to the receiving party. Centralization is necessary for the benefits in coordination, however oversight should be external as we fall into the age old question of “Who watches the watchmen?.” However my overall stance on the proposal is that it is not their domain to act as an investment fund, and thus it is not their core expertise. To achieve the desired result they should have either partnered with a group who does have expertise, or rethink the funding plan to stick to their domain.

Sample Voting Issue 2: FEI RARI

Prompts to Answer:

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

Split Reimbursement : Partial reimbursement I think would have been the appropriate step forward. FEI tokenholders voted to incorporate RARI into the ecosystem, and initially voted to reimburse, thus should have to socialize partial losses, with some sort of claim mechanism for the remaining and a multi-year plan to compensate individuals who lost capital in the exploit. If they chose not to take this path, then the only other option would be shut down the protocol, which I guess is what ultimately happened. This is a good example of how poor security practices and protocol management can lead to the end of strong technical development team. Bitfinex encountered a hack, socialized losses, issued a method to claim, and ultimately was able to battle through the challenges through transparent communication and commitment to a resolution.

Languages I speak and write: : English (en/us)

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
Diversity of opinions is critical to making progress and determining the future direction of the
Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize and celebrate the fact that delegates will have diverse views and we both encourage and anticipate good-faith debates in the governance process. That being said, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent you from using your best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

None to Disclose other than I am a contributing member of Premia, who is currently building products on both Arbitrum One as well as Arbitrum Nova, thus our community will apply votes that we find mutually favorable for both Arbitrum and Premia.

4 Likes
879

姓名（單位或個人：
JUSTONE

錢包地址或ENS ：
0x6E2cbb150D3915941c57428Eb676096D235025D0

理貨資料網址 ：

相符

Tally 上的 DAO 配置文件

來自地址 0xbd98…E260 的 DAO 成員資格、投票和提案

您最有興趣為哪個領域做出貢獻？ :

  • Arbitrum 上的 DeFi 開發
  • Arbitrum 上的 NFT 開發

請分享您對 DAO 總體目標的立場：
我不是流動性挖掘的粉絲，但我確實認為 DAO 存在的首要目的是透明和去中心化。通過投票由社區控制。特定 DAO 的領導團隊必須對他們接受的想法進行清晰的洞察。

示例投票問題 1：

  1. 阿加尼斯特
  2. 無修正案
  3. 對 DAO 的引用不好，越去中心化就越難達成一致，但我覺得委員會或代表履行了代表許多人聲音的重要職能，以優化治理流程。

示例投票問題 2：
拆分報銷

示例投票問題 2：
拆分報銷

我說和寫的語言：
中文

利益衝突披露：
無衝突

利益衝突披露：
無衝突

1 Like
880

:black_small_square: Ypretty

:black_small_square: yannapretty.eth

:black_small_square: Tally | yannapretty.eth

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

:black_small_square: DeFi development on Arbitrum
:black_small_square: Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

:black_small_square: Liquidity mining is a great financial tool, but I do not think that an aggressive approach is the right decision, I adhere to more conservative views.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

  1. Against
  2. No amendments
  3. The сorrect decision are accounting and distribution of votes among the committees or delegates that perform this vital function.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

Split Reimbursement

The correct solution should be to refund the funds to users affected by the hack, possibly with a deferment or phased payments.

Languages I speak and write:

:black_small_square: English, Russian

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

:black_small_square: No conflicts of interest

2 Likes
881

Name: Morello (Individual)
Wallet Address or ENS
0xbf4E6b0391CB8177dd3B46C47df236725AF080FA
Tally | Morello

I am a seasoned crypto tester and enthusiast with three years of experience in this field. I am constantly looking for opportunities to study and gain new skills in this exciting industry. I think your project offers a great platform for this. I intend to contribute to the growth and success of your project.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

How would you vote?
Rather against!

What amendments, if any, would you make to the proposal?

You need to understand that it is not controlled by a small number of interested people, as they can destroy the community. The DAO is based on security first and foremost!

1 Like
882

Name: Hjromli5

Wallet Address:
0x54Cf19C55B64c2F13F09A29308F1a1FD31862fEb

Tally Profile URL:

What area are you most interested in contributing to?

  • DeFi development on Arbitrum
  • Supporting Infrastructure
  • Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

  • the most important thing is how the governance of the DAO must be balanced with transparency and tied to decentralization
  • Defi requires trust for the community, DAO governance must be with full transparency and trust for the community

Issue 1:

  • Lots of thinking everyone is bad about security level how to transact securely in L2

Answer:
We need fully decentralized upgrade to tackle in transaction

Languages I speak and write:

  • English and Indonesia

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

  • No conflicts of interest
1 Like
883

infjdao - Twitter
infjcrypto.eth
(Tally | infjcrypto.eth)
Looking to the area of interest, I am interested in Gaming Development on arbitrum and DeFi Development on Arbitrum. Since it’s way more scalable.

The primary goal of the DAO should be to create a decentralized ecosystem that enables high scalability and interoperability. This can be achieved by leveraging blockchain technology and implementing innovative solutions such as sharding, sidechains, and layer 2 protocols.

In terms of liquidity mining, the DAO should adopt a balanced approach that incentivizes participation while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. The DAO should also prioritize the security and decentralization of the network, as these are critical factors for building trust and attracting more users.

A possible timeline roadmap for the DAO could include the following milestones:

  • Phase 1: Research and development of high scalability solutions, such as sharding and sidechains. This phase should also include the creation of a governance framework for the DAO and the establishment of partnerships with other blockchain projects.

  • Phase 2: Launch of the DAO’s mainnet and implementation of liquidity mining programs to incentivize participation. This phase should also focus on building a robust developer community and expanding the ecosystem through strategic partnerships and collaborations.

  • Phase 3: Integration of layer 2 protocols to further enhance scalability and interoperability. This phase should also include the implementation of advanced security measures and the development of decentralized applications (dApps) that showcase the potential of the DAO’s ecosystem.

  • Phase 4: Continued growth and expansion of the DAO’s ecosystem, with a focus on building a sustainable and decentralized network that can compete with traditional centralized systems. This phase should also include the exploration of new use cases for blockchain technology and the development of innovative solutions that can benefit society as a whole.

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
1 Like
884

Name (organization): SPACE ID

SPACE ID is a Web3 Identity Protocol with Multi-chain Name Service, and is providing the .arb Name Service on Arbitrum. As of March 22nd, 2023, SPACE ID .arb Name Service has already amassed a total of over 170,000 .arb registrations and 150,000 .arb unique holders in just a few weeks after the public registration. We strive to keep building a stronger web3 name & identity infrastructure on Arbitrum.

Wallet Address or ENS: spaceid.eth
0xb5932a6b7d50a966aec6c74c97385412fb497540

Tally Profile URL: https://www.tally.xyz/profile/spaceid.eth

We are most interested in contributing to these 2 fronts:

  • NFT development on Arbitrum
  • Supporting Infrastructure

On overall goals for the DAO:

We think the overall goals for the DAO should be to safeguard the core values we strive for in web3, including decentralization, permissionless open access, censorship resistance, transparent governance, etc.

While at the same time, being able to make decisions in an efficient way and encourage new innovations are also quite important, especially in the current environment where we see increasing “competition” on Ethereum L2 scaling solutions. DAO governance should avoid becoming a lengthy bureaucratic process that stifles innovations.

In terms of liquidity mining, we take a neutral stance in general. And we can share more informed views after getting more details regarding the proposed mechanism. We tend to agree that liquidity mining is an essential mechanism that provides the proper incentive to attract more activities and development, while at the same time, fairness of distribution is important, and we don’t want to see the system becoming “overly financialized”.

Sample Voting Issue 1 (Uniswap / Flipside Crypto):

  1. How would you vote?

We will vote for it. We think overall, the grant is aligned with the interests of the Uniswap community at large, given it is expected to drive new participants to the Uniswap ecosystem. While we recognize the fact that this proposal may come across as favoritism (picking Flipside Crypto vs. other analytics players), we think as long as proper diligence has been done and a governance structure with an oversight committee has been set up, it will mitigate potential conflict of interests.

  1. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

While we will vote for it, we still want to see more details regarding how the funding will be allocated and that the proper check and balance mechanism is in place, to avoid potential interest misalignment and moral hazard.

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

We will outline a few principles to evaluate such situations, to assess if any core value will be meaningfully compromised. After we reach a certain level of conviction that there is no material compromise on core values, we will prioritize to get things done (vs. being overly cautious that might slow things down).

Sample Voting Issue 2 (FEI RARI Hack Reimbursement):

Should parties be reimbursed for an exploit or not?

We support Full Reimbursement, for the following reasons:

  1. In this case and other similar cases, despite dApp’s decentralization or self-custody narrative, we believe there is still an implied fiduciary obligation by the dApp to users, given a different level of information and responsibilities - you can’t expect the users to read through every code and decide to trust the dApp purely based on the quality of the code, in truth users still entrust their asset to the dApp, and the dApp often has made such implicit promises or created such expectation of proper user protection.

  2. In order for web3 to get mass adoption, the developers and communities should take up the responsibility to protect users - who may have only limited knowledge about blockchain and crypto, and have to rely on the dApp service providers / DAOs.

While at the same time, there may be cases that a Full Reimbursement will create greater harm to the community at large - e.g. such Full Reimbursement leads to a liquidity crunch and financial distress. In such cases, some kind of Partial Reimbursement and restructuring plan should be considered.

Languages I speak and write: English and Chinese Bilingual

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

We affirm that we don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent us from using our best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

2 Likes