Name: Curia (organization)
ENS: curia-delegates.eth
Tally Profile URL: Tally.xyz Curia Profile
What area are we most interested in contributing to?
- Improving Governance participation
- Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization
Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
Our foremost objective for the Arbitrum DAO is to foster sustainable growth, decentralization, security, and transparency, while nurturing a diverse and inclusive community. To achieve this, we are committed to enhancing governance participation and bolstering protocol decentralization through our research, experience, and innovative solutions. This will enable the DAO to make well-informed decisions and effectively attain its goals.
For example, we offer data analysis to provide evidence supporting the SafeDAO token utility proposal, empowering the community to make informed decisions. Additionally, we have access to resources from a leading venture builder in Southeast Asia, which will greatly aid our efforts in contributing to and guiding the development of Arbitrum DAO.
Sample Voting Issue 1:
- Uniswap planned to use Flipside to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties. Although the program outline and funding was fine, the proposal was contentious because it gave Flipside crypto too much control over allocating UNI to bounties and oversight of the entire program.
Our Take:
-
How would you vote?
Against
-
What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
We suggest the following amendments:
- Adjust the allocation committee to be comprised of more neutral parties with strict term limits and responsibilities, ensuring a fairer and less centralized process.
- Separate the grants into quarterly distributions to enhance accountability and reduce the risk associated with large allocations delivered only once a year.
- Establish clear KPIs for better assessment of the program’s success, rather than relying on vague transparency dashboards and committees.
- Introduce checkpoints throughout the delegation period, encouraging routine votes and increased accountability from the grantee. This would ensure the DAO remains comfortable with the large allocation and promote transparency through regular reporting.
- Break this proposal into multiple smaller proposals, covering aspects such as committee members, a grant proposal for Community-Enabled Analytics for Flipside, and guidelines on treasury funds management. This approach would avoid confusion and help voters better assess the proposal’s merits and drawbacks.
-
How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
We advocate for progressive decentralization, viewing decentralization as a journey rather than an abrupt shift. Starting with complete decentralization can hinder decision-making efficiency, but gradually implementing strong governance frameworks can streamline the process. It takes time to establish elements such as proposal timelines, resource allocation framework, and process feedback loop, which help create a decentralized protocol that operates efficiently, transparently, and trustlessly.
A DAO should consider centralizing certain aspects when specialist knowledge and quick decision-making are required, which might be challenging for the broader DAO community. In such cases, trusted members with relevant expertise should be appointed to act on the DAO’s behalf.
While we believe that protocols should work towards decentralization, it is crucial to do so sustainably, ensuring that the protocol or DAOs remains efficient and resilient against potential exploitation. We look forward to supporting DAOs on its journey towards sustainable decentralization, striking a appropirate balance between centralization and decentralization at each stages, promoting effective decision-making and broad participation.
Sample Voting Issue 2:
Issue Overview: FEI RARI Hack Reimbursement
Our take:
Full reimbursement - Handling reimbursement after a hack is a complex matter that requires a case-by-case assessment. When determining whether to distribute reimbursement, various factors should be considered, including the hack’s preventability, the parties bearing the cost of reimbursement, the potential impact on the protocol’s viability, the protocol’s plans post-hack, the DAO treasury’s size, and alternative reimbursement methods, such as revenue sharing to gradually repay affected parties.
In the first snapshot proposal, many of these questions were left unanswered, leading to potential uninformed decision-making that could be detrimental to the DAO. Given that Rari eventually deprecated their governance and protocol, it seems reasonable to utilize any remaining funds to compensate those affected. Nevertheless, this process must be approached with caution, taking into account the order and assets in which people are reimbursed. Moreover, if the available funds cannot cover all affected parties, the DAO should determine whether to fully compensate some users, distribute the funds evenly, or allocate them proportionally.
In situations like these, it is crucial to explore all options and maintain transparency with information. This approach enables voters to better understand the circumstances and make educated decisions, ultimately leading to more favorable outcomes.
Languages I speak and write: English & Thai
Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
As a governance and DAO research team, we work with several other projects and DAOs such as SafeDAO and Optimism to enhance their governance and decision-making processes. We are committed to maintaining transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest in our work with the Arbitrum DAO. When required, we will disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in the course of our engagement.
