Delegate Statement Template

[tyson]

Name:Satish (Individual)

ENS: iamsatish.eth

Tally: Tally | iamsatish.eth

Areas of interest:

• Public goods funding
• Gaming on Nova

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
LET USERS DECIDE THE ACTIONS

Sample Voting Issue 1 - UniSwap/Flipside Bounty

How would you vote?
For
Delegation of voting power is necessary for any DAO to be able to function efficiently in the long term. Even though it brings a degree of centralisation, as long as they do not control an excessive amount of the larger DAO and they have sufficient accountability measures it’s a good initiative.

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

Identify the events that contains users involvement

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

It’s inevitable that effectiveness and decentralisation are inversely proportional. As long as the centralised entities are still ultimately dependent on the DAOs approval, and they operate as transparently as possible, this is a necessary tool for the development of the DAO.

A DAO should consider having centralising points only when specialists are required to act knowledgeable and quickly, something which the Vox Populi of the DAO might struggle with. The entities to do this should be trusted members of the space of course.

Sample Voting Issue 2 - Rari Hack Reinbursement

based on the project treasury

Split Reimbursement

For this reason, I believe at least a partial reinbursement is always to be considered when a protocol has decided to cooperate with you. These parties decided to entrust the security of your smart contracts, and their dedication and trust that was placed onto the protocol should be thanked by at least trying to provide some funds back. In the future, this could even be handled with DAO insurance protocols, which are already being developed in the space.

However, I would be hesitant to provide a full reinbursement when the hack has already severely

TL;DR Provide enough compensation to thank the participants for engaging in the system, but while a full reinbursement might help these stakeholders, the impact of this action could lead to the DAO entering a negative death spiral.

Languages I speak and write: By order of preference - English, Hindi, Telugu

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
iam a computer science student interested in blockchain and crypto i love arbitrum vision
so i want contribute the arbitrum ecosystem

[bubli.eth]

@Arbitrum

Name (organization or individual)

Name (organization or individual): - bubli.eth

Wallet Address or ENS :- bubli.eth

Tally Profile URL:- Tally | bubli.eth

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:

Arbitrum with 18 months of Maninnet testing, becoming a block chain of preference by many protocols and has a huge community believing in it. This proves that the block chain is tried and tested with community suport and trust.The security experience and affordability has been proven till date by the blockchain and Protocols on it.

The DAO goals, being a decentralised entity with views, experience, expertise of diverse stakeholders and tokenholders will draw debates, opinions and judgements for the betterment of all involved with the DAO which is diverse will draw debates, opinions in the greater interest of the blockchain, DAO and community. The Arbitrum token holders who providing, in the best possible conditions, the financial advice and services that members need.

Contributing to the cooperative, economic and financial education of members, that is to provide them with a way to achieve independence. Promoting and supporting community development.

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

One such recent case: Euler Finance hack :- $200mn.

The protocol considered as best and innovative in DeFi, team members of great experience and expertise, 6 smart contract audits still fell prey to the Hack. the bug bounty announced is $1 mn. Lives impacted badly and I think till date the recovery is in process but no positive results yet.

Is the bounty amount rational ? I think NO.

Will it compel the hacker ? In my opinion NEVER.

Will it create interest of negotiation with the hacker ? Till date it didn’t.

If there was a DAO and proposal made, my stance would have been as follows:

Goal: Recovering as much and at the earliest to get the protocol up and running.
Keeping the community and stakeholder trust. Utilizing all the experience, expertise and community trust to drive value in the short and long term financially on investments with current and new innovative offerings. Putting energy and efforts to build a robust and less or no vulnerability in the protocol.I would vote against the proposal as I feel the bounty placed is too small to entice the hacker or anyone to make efforts to provide information.

I suggest increasing it to 15% of the hacked amount, which may entice the hacker and after 40% of tax liability (as in most countries) will be enough money for his livelihood. This will expedite everything and drive better days for the protocol.

Languages I speak and write: English, Hindi and Marathi.

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: I have no conflict of Interest.

[lettuce]

Name: Lettuce
Wallet Address: 0x01763c5530ab5419ab3dddc2d7578634870cf1c8
Tally Profile: Tally | 0x0176...f1c8
I am mostly interested in NFT development and supporting infrastrusture.
First of all DAO solves the problem of trust. Also 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. No more
3. The tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done is a common challenge for any organization, including DAOs.

I can speak English and Russian a bit. Also some Spanish.
No conflict of interest

[Bagaden]

Name (organization or individual)

Bagaden

Wallet Address or ENS

0x46E1A4fE1EC5753eB61e91B83d3d54fA3F8C1e89

Tally Profile URL (create a profile here 108)

DAO Profile on Tally

What area are you most interested in contributing to?

NFTs have gained a lot of attention in recent years as a way to monetize digital content and establish ownership and provenance.

Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

To create a decentralized and democratic organization, where decision-making power is distributed among its members rather than being centralized in a single entity.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

Against
No amendments, just cancel it altogether.

The solution is reputational avatars 20, which solves most if not all DAO participation and token-weight voting problems.

Reputational avatars are one possible solution to address participation and voting problems in DAOs. Reputational avatars can help to establish trust and reputation within the DAO community by assigning a reputation score to each member based on their contributions and behavior within the DAO. This can be used to determine voting power, as well as to reward members for their contributions and incentivize positive behavior.

By using reputational avatars, DAOs can potentially address some of the challenges that arise from token-weighted voting, where members with more tokens have more voting power. Token-weighted voting can create a situation where a small group of token holders have significant influence over the DAO’s decision-making, potentially leading to centralization and exclusion of smaller token holders.

Languages I speak and write:

English, Filipino

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

NO conflicts of interest

[gauntlet]

Name (organization or individual): Gauntlet

Wallet Address or ENS: gauntletgov.eth

Tally Profile URL: Tally | Gauntlet

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 — 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:

Gauntlet’s delegate guidelines are informed by our core values and prior experience analyzing both protocols and blockchain networks.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen competition and innovation in L2’s ramp up dramatically. In this landscape, many L2’s have failed to keep up with market changes by not investing heavily in forward-looking development.

Ongoing issuance is a powerful mechanism to incentivize development. We believe that Arbitrum should invest significant resources into ecosystem growth, R&D, insurance, auditing, and security analysis. We see the following examples of spending as crucial to the continued competitiveness of the L2:

• Market risk
• Research, development, and security
• Ecosystem growth
• Supporting novel use-cases

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Gauntlet was (and still is) a delegate for Uniswap at the time of this vote. While Gauntlet abstained, per our Uniswap Voting Philosophy, it should be noted that the Flipside team has proven to be valuable contributors across DeFi and DAOs.

Given the contention around centralization/concentration, an amendment to be considered would be iterative polling related to various aspects of the proposal. For example, gaining additional UNI holder input, via a vote, on committee mandate(s), committee structure, committee personnel, and term lengths.

Sample Voting Issue 2:
When taking all of the factors into account, Gauntlet would opt for split reimbursement. While it wasn’t a stated responsibility of the team to compensate users for losses the protocol endures, it’s clear from the initial vote and discussion that a partial reimbursement would have the best chance of restoring user faith in the protocol and allow it to potentially grow beyond the state it was in. Broadly speaking, these situations should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as no two situations are identical.

Languages we speak and write: English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, German, Greek, French, Russian, Farsi, Degen

Conflicts of Interest:

• Gauntlet has and will continue to deploy our platform to other protocols and DAOs.
• Gauntlet holds token positions from prior work including but not limited to COMP, LQTY, AAVE, SUSHI, and BAL.
• Gauntlet’s investors may hold positions in Arbitrum and other protocols.
• Gauntlet sits on the dYdX Grants Council as a reviewer. Other Gauntlet employees may participate in other governance councils or DAOs in the future.
• Gauntlet is an active delegate on Compound, Uniswap, Aave, and dYdX.

[Basically]

Name (organization or individual): Basically

Wallet Address or ENS: 0x5252aa0a56dfFe64A74CB99C7525ceeBFa352D80

Tally Profile URL: Tally | 0x5252...2D80

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

• NFT development on Arbitrum
• Gaming development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
The DAO should focus on promoting innovation, creativity, and accessibility in the gaming and NFT sectors, while fostering a collaborative and inclusive ecosystem for developers, artists, and users. The DAO should strive to create a sustainable environment that balances the need for growth and user engagement with long-term value creation. This can be achieved by supporting projects that prioritize user experience, fair revenue distribution, and interoperability between different platforms and communities.

Sample Voting Issue 1: How would you vote?
Against

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any? I would propose the following amendments:

1. Reducing Flipside’s representation on the allocation and oversight committees, ensuring a more decentralized decision-making process.
2. Including other analytics service providers in the proposal, to prevent favoritism and foster a more collaborative environment.

How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
The tradeoff should be approached by balancing the need for efficiency and the need for decentralization. Decision-making processes should be as decentralized as possible, while still allowing for timely execution. This can be achieved by setting up committees with diverse representation, clear roles, and responsibilities, and establishing transparent voting and decision-making mechanisms.

Sample Voting Issue 2: Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation? Split Reimbursement

Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.
I believe reimbursement should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the severity of the exploit, the impact on users, and the responsibility of the project team. In cases where the project team has been negligent or failed to address known security issues, a reimbursement should be strongly considered. In other instances, where the exploit is a result of unforeseeable circumstances or third-party actions, a split reimbursement might be more appropriate to share the burden between the project and affected users.

Languages I speak and write:
English,Russian (only speak),German

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

no conflicts of interest.

[Mani7]

Name (organization or individual): Galxe

Wallet Address or ENS

0x5aB0Fdc6F0CA9Ea178c95cECCf944A4ce1AedDdD

galxe.eth

Tally Profile URL

https://www.tally.xyz/profile/bulletlabs.eth

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

• NFT development on Arbitrum
• Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

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:

We do acknowledge that liquidity mining can be a powerful tool for incentivizing participation and development, and that ensuring a fair distribution of rewards is crucial, though we’re not taking a specific position at this time, as initially we’d need to review the underlying mechanism.

The overarching objective of the Arbitrum DAO should be to uphold the fundamental principles of Web3, such as decentralization, and at the same time foster a culture of innovation and facilitating efficient decision-making processes. As the Ethereum ecosystem becomes more competitive, it is important that the DAO remains agile and responsive to new developments in the space.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

1. How would you vote?

Against

Regarding the proposal to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties, we would vote against it as currently structured. While the program outline and funding may be fine, the proposal gives Flipside crypto too much control over allocating UNI to bounties and oversight of the entire program. This centralization of power and favoritism towards one service provider could lead to an unfair distribution of funds.

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

To address this, we would propose reducing Flipside’s control over the allocation and oversight committees. A more equitable distribution of seats should be pursued, with representation from multiple analytics service providers and community members. This would help prevent centralization and favoritism towards a single service provider. Also, other analytics service providers should be included in the proposal, promoting collaboration, transparency, and a more balanced approach to the entire program. Clear guidelines and criteria for allocating UNI bounties should also be established, making sure that the process is transparent and objective, without any influence from specific stakeholders.

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

When it comes to the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done, we believe that everything has its place. However, we lean more towards the decentralization answer. Committees or delegates fulfill the vital function of representing the voice of many in order to optimize governance processes. Still, diversity of opinions and participants should be the main objective of a DAO.

---

Sample Voting Issue 2:

Split reimbursement.

We believe a split reimbursement is the most reasonable approach in the Rari hack, because it allows for a fair distribution of the financial burden among the affected parties, and prevents any one group from bearing the full cost of the attack.

Determining the appropriate split is a difficult task that needs careful evaluation, since there are factors such as the severity of the hack, the degree of shared responsibility among the affected parties, and the overall financial health of the DAO must all be taken into account. Even if a split reimbursement may not fully satisfy any one party, it is often the most equitable solution and can help to prevent any long-lasting damage to the DAO’s reputation and financial stability.

Languages I speak and write:

English, Mandarin, Russian, French

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

We confirm that we have no conflicts of interest.

[BlockworksResearch]

Name: Blockworks Research
Wallet Address or ENS: blockworksres.eth
Tally Profile URL: Blockworks Research

What area are you most interested in contributing to?:

• DeFi 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?

Our Response:

The DAO’s main prerogative should be attracting builders into the ecosystem and minimizing the trust assumptions associated with the rollup. Liquidity mining can be one of the tools to achieve these overarching goals, but should not be considered at the forefront of the DAO’s mission or aggressively pursued.

Deploying treasury funds to liquidity mining will bring far more opportunist capital than sticky liquidity or brainpower into the Arbitrum ecosystem. Great dApps, an excellent user experience, and an ethos of decentralization will bring market participants and value into the community that will not only stick around for the long term but be quality contributors. The DAO can achieve these goals by optimizing the use of DAO resources toward efficient governance, an educated community, and most of all, incredible ecosystem developments and public goods.

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

Sample Voting Issue 1:

Our Response: Against

The primary issue with this proposal is the centralization of authority with which the UNI would be allocated. As stated in the description, Flipside’s site would be the only source for these bounties, and the Flipside team would retain a large amount of voting power over where this UNI would be allocated. Having a centralized team handle a project does have its benefits: increased efficiency, clear accountability, and no fragmentation. However, it is more important that the role of a DAO should not be to pick winners and losers, but rather allocate funding that best improves the ecosystem in a fair and efficient manner. Credible neutrality must be maintained, especially if the goal of the DAO itself is to remain truly decentralized.

Given that there are many different data providers who all have their own sets of users, specialities, and are aligned with the goals of the DAO, allocation for a bounty program should make sure to fund each provider equally based on the value they can provide the ecosystem. While we are very much in favor of a bounty program to increase the availability of quality data and more active participation from community members, we would have likely pushed for an updated proposal that included Dune, The Graph, and other data providers, and given them equal access to funding and equal say in the Oversight and Allocation Committees to hold each other accountable.

Looking even further at the details of the proposal, the funding is split between $15M for the first year and $10M for the second year. However, the proposal does not give any solid reasoning for the second year funding. It may be better to change the proposal to include one year of funding, that is then reevaluated in a future governance proposal. That first year would then be a good gauge of whether the program should continue, requires more or less funding, or can be changed to better fit the current needs.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

Our Response: Full Reimbursement

It is imperative for the future of the team as individuals, as well as potential future crypto regulation, to reduce end user damage in exploits. While the primary role of the PCV was to collateralize FEI, with the DAO in control of the capital, it seems necessary that it be used to reimburse victims; it was the operators’ fault, not the users’ fault, that the protocol was hacked. In the same vein as the bank runs we’ve seen of late in TradFi, depositors should be reimbursed as the equity value is written off to zero. Exploits are a major downside of permissionless finance, but governance can alleviate this downside while still attesting to the immutable nature of DeFi.

While a partial reimbursement that doesn’t kill the protocol and still somewhat reimburses victims could be a potential compromise, it’s hard to know exactly where to draw the line. In addition, a full reimbursement still left $65M left over for the DAO to manage, which could either contribute to a revival of the protocol or give value to token holders. Any additional compromise would be helping the team and insiders at the expense of the actual hack victims, which does not seem fair.

Languages we speak and write:

English and Mandarin

Blockworks Research does not have any conflict of interest and swears to act on behalf of the Arbitrum DAO to the best of our abilities.

[Tassilo]

Name:

• Tassilo

Wallet Address or ENS:

• 0xtassilo.eth

Tally Profile URL:

• Tally

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 the overall goals for the DAO:
I am beyond excited that Arbitrum launches a DAO. I have been using the project from the start after Bankless did an episode on the mainnet launch. I believe in the modular blockchain thesis and want to support the Ethereum ecosystem with my efforts. Most ppl talk about zk-rollups these days, but only a few know what EVM+ compatibility is and how Arbitrum is making its way up.

Liquidity mining:
While liquidity mining is used by many industry players to attract users and grow the protocol, I believe that its usage should be moderate. Arbitrum has already build substantial traction around projects and users. Giving the right incentives is more crucial than aggressively deploying capital imo. Users should have long-term incentives in staying on Arbitrum.

Arbitrum DAO goals
I believe that on a meta-level, Arbitrum DAO can align on the goal of growing Arbitrum together. There is a broad range of projects already building on Arbitrum and many will follow in the future. Aligning the needs of the users and the projects building on Arbitrum offers a great way forward. Surely, building a decentralized and healthy DAO that includes everyone is a goal in itself. Doing that in a sustainable way requires a lot of effort. I am willing and eager to support Arbitrum DAO in that effort.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

• Uniswap planned to use Flipside to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties. Although the program outline and funding was fine, the proposal was contentious because it gave Flipside crypto too much control over allocating UNI to bounties and oversight of the entire program.
• For instance, Flipside had 3/7 seats on the allocation committee and 1/3 seats on the Oversight committee. There was also concern since none of the other analytics service providers were involved in the proposal.
• This proposal flew under the radar but at the 11th hour got very heated. Large votes from university clubs supported the proposal since they would get a seat on the allocation committee. However, Dune and Leshner spoke up about the issue because of the centralization of power and favor of one service provider.

Prompts to Answer:

1. How would you vote?
Against
2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
One amendment I would propose is regarding the general governance process. I’d like to discuss the conflict of interest that arises when the same institution holds seats in both the allocation committee and the Oversight committee. Therefore I would propose limiting an organization to have majority seats in either one of those two committees. It is hard to be objective if you can allocate the funds and at the same time oversee the process. It is like making the law and at the same time executing it. There is a reason why democracies separate legislation, jurisdiction, and execution. I think we can learn from that.
3. How would you approach the tradeoff between the centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
Finding consensus can take time, but that is the value that democracy brings. I believe that centralization of authority should be avoided at all costs. In the beginning, it might be hard, and there will be a lot of discussions involved, but over time, processes and also tools will improve and increase the speed of decision-making. In my opinion, it is important to create diversity at the DAO participants base first. Then improve the processes and speed up.

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)

3. Split Reimbursement
   It is a tricky question, and there are arguments for each of the options. I do believe that web3 is still in its infancy, and everyone participating in it is looking for lucrative, life-changing, or experimental opportunities while taking on a considerable amount of risk. In my opinion, it is not up to the protocol to cover up the user’s losses entirely. Instead, I believe that a solid way forward for a DAO is to cover parts of the losses as long as it doesn’t threaten the continued existence of the protocol. Participants share the other part of the losses as part of the risk they subscribed to in the first place.

Languages I speak and write:

German & English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I am also participating in the governance of other DAOs. I am an official delegate of the Optimism Token House and actively engaging in governance. I believe that the overall ecosystem can grow if we work together. There are common challenges that crypto, and particularly the Ethereum ecosystem, faces, and those range from macroeconomic factors over regulatory threats to the overall image of crypto and its adoption. There is more that unites Arbitrum and Optimism. I will always argue in the best interest of the respective protocol while sharing learnings and accelerating governance processes. I would love to be a part of Arbitrum Governance and hope I will get a chance.

[Ho3ein]

Ho3ein

0xE790404073A831E802DF43aA375a63Bfc054916b

What area are you most interested in contributing to?

• NFT development on Arbitrum

• Gaming development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

• I am okay with liquidity mining We need to build more.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

1. Against
2. No amendments,

Sample Voting Issue 2:
It depends where the reimbursement would come from.

Languages I speak and write:

• English*

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

• no conflicts of interest
  Tanks for supporting

[derbygoldeth]

Name (organization or individual): - Dilip Kumar

Wallet Address or ENS :- eurom.eth

Tally Profile URL:- Tally | Tally | eurom.eth

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:

1. Transperency & Growth

2. Risk and Un-immutability

3. Coordination and Complete Decentralization

4. Community and Profit

   Arbitrum in its 18 months main net journey has bridged the above points with its block chain efficiently. The DAO has its own advantages and challenges keeping in ming the interest of all the stakeholders.

Grants are the ways to provide fuel of capital as investement for sustainability, growth and innovation of the entire ecosystem. Public goods funding via proper process, evaluation and match of vision and goals is super important as well as crucial, but keeping transperency, trust, decentralization, un-immutability of the protocols from risk ia equally crucial for the ecosystem projects/ protocols.

Governance process creating synergies on transperency, centralization and decentralization, engagement and participation of stake holders, right decisions plays an important role in all aspects of the ecosystem working, branding and preception of the DAO.

I am of the opinion that both the above aspects of right Public Good Funding and Propoer governance process with multilayers and multi - ways will go a long way the sucess, interst, engagement.

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

Many issues that the industry has seen recently in DAO hack like Mango, Nomad, Rari and few more speaks volume about the need for suitable governance process for participation and engagement. Most of them lacked participation in the proposal from general community and delegators.

Lesson learnt: Multi layer and multi tier governance system involving participation and engagement from many stake holders.

Languages I speak and write: English, Hindi and Tamil.

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: Till recently, I was a Senior Grants Reviewer at Polygon, but since the grant process has been shutdown last month, currently I have no conflict of Interest.

[CryptoNick]

Name: Nicklas

Wallet Address 0x25d9260855f7e2b5f425ad4802227b10d39e88f5

Tally Profile: Tally | Nick

What area are you most interested in contributing to?:

• Supporting Infrastructure
• Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

Improving the supporting infrastructure of a DAO is essential for achieving a high degree of decentralization. This includes investing in network security, developing reliable smart contract templates, and ensuring that the DAO’s codebase is constantly updated and audited to prevent vulnerabilities. Secondly, tooling plays a critical role in facilitating the smooth functioning of a DAO. This includes developing user-friendly interfaces, analytics tools, and other applications that can make it easier for members to participate in decision-making and monitor the DAO’s performance. By investing in tooling, we can create a more inclusive and accessible DAO that can attract a broader range of participants, thereby enhancing its decentralization.

Before this, it is essential that the DAO prioritizes its investment in supporting infrastructure and tooling to achieve a high degree of decentralization before pursuing other goals. Only then can the DAO fully realize its potential as a self-governing and decentralized entity.

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview

1. How would you vote? Against

It is important to consider the potential risks and benefits that the proposal may bring to the community. While the proposal aims to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties, it also grants significant control over the allocation of UNI to a single service provider. I would perhaps vote in favor of the proposal if it would bring significant benefits to the community, but I would always have the possibility of a centralization of power as a serious concern. Ask yourself: Do you want Binance or another crypto company to have the majority of votes? No…

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

No amendments

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

Initial fair and equal distribution of power and influence, but rewarding active and USEFUL participants, as this is needed in creating a strong and resilient DAO.

Sample Voting Issue 2: No Reimbursement.

I would argue against reimbursement is that it can create a moral hazard, where individuals or entities take risks without fully considering the potential consequences because they believe they will be bailed out if something goes wrong. (Wall Street, banks in general cough)

Another argument against reimbursement is that it can be unfair to those who did not suffer losses due to the hack. If reimbursement is provided, it would effectively transfer wealth from those who held their tokens elsewhere, as the price would react to money being thrown into the market. This seems unjust to me.

Furthermore, it can also be argued that the decision to invest or participate in a particular platform is a personal choice, and individuals should be responsible for their own due diligence before making any investments or transactions. Reimbursement may encourage individuals to overlook the risks associated with investing or participating in a platform and instead rely on the potential for reimbursement in case of losses.

Languages I speak and write:
Danish, English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
None

[griptoe]

Name: Pepe

Wallet: 0x8C4d7d482780CCB799e2415F25b767250887e580

Tally Profile: 0x8c4d7d482780ccb799e2415f25b767250887e580

What area are you most interested in contributing?

• long term: DeFi Development on Arbitrum, since it will set us free from deeply unfair traditional banking system.
• short term: Gaming development on Arbitrum, since it will pull in a lot of people that will then expand their experience into the whole ecosystem. Masses go always the fun way the easiest.

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

A DAO is a structure used to give the many a voice by making governance accessible and transparent. Therefore it forms a strong community of individuals that be part of something big.

Liquidity mining is a proven strategy to bootstrap a DeFi ecosystem. However, the aggressiveness of liquidity mining strategy should be carefully evaluated to make sure it aligns with the DAO’s overall goals and financial sustainability.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

The D in DAO stand for “decentralized” so the answer should be clear.

If you give individuals too much power they tend to play the game selfish. It is what it is.

On the other hand maybe you want to give good players enough power to push positive developments faster, but still this distribution of power should be subject of the DAO itself.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

Full reimbursement. People have to feel safe as possible using crypto to get mass adoption speeding up. So for the greater good we should make whole what we can.

Language I speak and write:

English, German

Disclosure of Conflicts of interest:

I want Arbitrum to win, so no conflict here.

[CryptoWes]

Name : CryptoWes

ENS : 0xDd0EFC95a1a861a27EE3BB209B18BD7DD4E0F3B0

Tally Profile URL : https://twitter.com/CryptoWes6

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

Public Goods funding

Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
I am strong on community-driven decision making and sustainability.

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Prompts to Answer:

How would you vote?
I will vote against the proposal as it appears to give too much control to a single service provider. The proposal could result in centralization of power and favoritism towards Flipside, which could potentially harm the overall decentralized nature of the Uniswap platform.

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

A revision of the allocation committee and oversight committee to have a more balanced distribution of power among service providers. Also, a clause could be added to the proposal, stipulating that if Flipside fails to meet certain performance metrics, its position could be reviewed, and other analytics service providers could be considered for the role.

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

The potential concentration of power could lead to centralization, which may not align with the overall principles of the Uniswap platform. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that any decisions made are in line with the principles of decentralization and sustainability.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

I will support Full Reimbursement: I believe users should not be punished for something that was out of their control. If a hack or exploit occurred due to a vulnerability in the system, users should not be held responsible for the loss of their assets. This can help maintain trust and confidence in the network and prevent users from abandoning the platform.

Languages I speak and write: English and Chinese

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I don’t have any conflict of interest

[Layer2DAO]

Name (organization or individual): Layer2DAO

Wallet Address or ENS:
0x5318f07A3a20A2f8bb0DDf14F1DD58C517a76508

Tally Profile URL: TBD, please reference multisig address above.

What area are you most interested in contributing to? choose up to two tags:
As a whole we are most interested in expanding DeFi Development and NFT Development in Arbitrum. We know that these two things are a solid foundation as the demand for both is currently increasing and leads to a healthy and sustainable chain with enough activity to support itself for the long run. An expansion of these two things is a win for all of us involved in both Arbitrum and Ethereum. However, we also fully support public goods funding.

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
We believe we have invaluable experience in governance that we’d love to share while also learning some new things we can apply to our own DAO. Layer2DAO is an ever-evolving, multicultural, worldwide group that believes wholly in the Ethereum L2 and Arbitrum ecosystem. We are committed to playing a part in Arbitrum governance and we are certain that it will be mutually beneficial for all involved. What we do as Layer2DAO is to help promote the growth, startup, and expansion of projects that can benefit the system as a whole and it’s imperative to note that our success as Layer2DAO intentionally and directly depends on the Ethereum L2 and Arbitrum ecosystem. Several core team members of our DAO have direct experience as delegates already and fully understand the weight of the trust that is placed in them when tokens are delegated.

Through proper procedures and governance Arbitrum can support and expand projects that will enrich the ecosystem and that should be the end goal of Arbitrum DAO. We believe grants are a more effective way to use funds than liquidity mining. Both have their place but by utilizing grants properly, with clear cut tranches and milestones in order to progress to the next step, it will have a more positive impact on the token itself, as well as Arbitrum. The beginning is the most important step as we have the most opportunity available. Having trusted, experienced delegates will ensure the governance process does what it is designed to do. With so many great ideas and opportunities waiting to come to fruition, it is also important to recognize and call out legitimately bad actors in the space. If we fail to do this, we fail completely.

We would be honored to be considered as a delegate for Arbitrum.

Voting Issues:
These issues are good examples of the challenges in decentralized governance. Often votes can “fly under the radar” or are controlled by a few, engaged members. As a DAO, we strive to overcome similar challenges and ensure our community is engaged, educated on issues, and participates in votes.

As for how we would address the specific examples provided, we cannot provide a concrete direction, since we would allow the DAO to discuss, vote on, and decide which side we would take. We can though outline the process for how we would move through this as a DAO:

1. Proposal Gathering: When an Arbitrum governance vote is upcoming, a dedicated member/committee of Layer2DAO will forward a proposal that reflects the Arbitrum vote for consideration by the community. The proposal should clearly outline the issue or decision to be made and provide all relevant information.

2. Discussion: Once the proposal is submitted, the community will have a period of time to discuss the proposal and ask any questions. This is done through a dedicated channel on the Layer2DAO discord server, and all members are encouraged to participate. We might token gate the discussion thread to eligible voters/token holders.

3. Voting: After the discussion period, the voting process begins. Each member of the DAO will have the opportunity to cast their vote on the proposal. At this time Layer2DAO uses Snapshot for voting, but this might change in the future as new platforms are evaluated.

4. Tallying of Votes: Once the voting period is over, the votes are tallied, and the results are announced. The outcome of the vote is determined by a majority of the votes cast.

5. Execution of the Decision: If the proposal is approved, the resulting vote is then placed in Arbitrum governance from the DAO multisig.

6. Review and Evaluation: After the decision has been executed, the Layer2DAO community evaluates the outcome of the decision and assesses its impact. This feedback is used to improve the decision-making process for future proposals.

Languages I speak and write:
Since we’re a multicultural, world wide group of individuals there is a variety of languages spoken within the community. Some, but not all, include English, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Portuguese. Because of these community members and contributors we can reach a broader audience across the globe.

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
As stated before, Layer2DAO is set up in a way that naturally aligns with Arbitrum. As such we have no conflicts of interest.

[hugo.eth]

Name: Hugo.eth (individual)
Wallet: 0xcB766C23486Db70866394455d5f670A10c2438B7
Tally Profile URL: Hugo.eth

What area are you most interested in contributing to?

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

Sample Voting Issue 1 - UniSwap/Flipside Bounty
How would you vote?
Against

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
No amendments

How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
Initial equal and fair distribution between active participants, proving more power for useful for DAO actions.

Sample Voting Issue 2 - Rari Hack Reinbursement
Hackings of DAOs can be very damaging both to the DAO owners and to the users who trust them. In some cases, hackings can be so severe that they affect the stability and trust in the entire platform.

As for whether they should be reimbursed, it’s a complicated issue that depends on several factors, such as the size and severity of the hack, the impact it has had on the platform, and the financial capability of the DAO to absorb the loss.

In some cases, the DAO may have an insurance fund or contingency plan in place to compensate affected users for the hack. In other cases, the DAO may choose to reimburse affected users as a matter of goodwill and to restore trust in the platform.

Ultimately, the decision to reimburse affected users depends on the DAO and its community of owners and users. There may be different approaches depending on the DAO and the particular situation.

Languages I speak and write:
English, Spanish

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I have no conflict of interest that prevents me from using the best possible judgment.

[krst]

Name: L2BEAT (organization)

Website: l2beat.com
Twitter: @l2beat
Wallet Address or ENS: l2beatcom.eth

Tally Profile: Tally | l2beatcom.eth

Areas of interest:

• Supporting Infrastructure
• Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

Hi, we’re L2BEAT, an independent, impartial watchdog for the Ethereum scaling community. Our mission is to provide comprehensive and unbiased analysis and comparative evaluations of Layer 2 solutions within the Ethereum scaling landscape. Our goal is to help users better understand how different Layer 2 technologies work and the risks associated with them by digging deep into the code and on-chain transactions. We are committed to the verification and fact-checking of the claims made by each project, with a special focus on the security aspects.

In addition, we actively participate in constructive discussions of specific protocol challenges and issues, fostering the discourse toward increasingly permissionless, open source, and trustless systems. Our participation in various Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and public debates reflects this commitment.

We recognize that governance is a critical issue undergoing experimentation in the current context. The processes and precedents we establish today will significantly influence the organizational structures and systems of the future. Consequently, we view our engagement in governance as a professional responsibility, and our team is dedicated to addressing governance and policy issues.

By maintaining our independence and impartiality, L2BEAT is dedicated to fostering transparency, trust and innovation in the Ethereum scaling community. Together, we aim to contribute to the development of secure, efficient, and user-friendly layer 2 solutions that will shape the future of blockchain technology.

We assert that governance involves much more than the act of voting; it revolves primarily around fostering constructive dialogue and facilitating the healthy exchange of opinions and viewpoints in order to reach consensus on specific issues.

Therefore, we recognize the establishment of a robust platform for constructive debate as the primary goal and challenge for the Arbitrum DAO. This goal is especially important when considering the oversight role of the Arbitrum DAO in the broader Arbitrum Layer 2 ecosystem.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

We would vote: For

Proposed amendments:

1. Establish oversight mechanisms within the DAO, by having an elected DAO member(s) to supervise this process. Appointing elected representatives to supervise the utilization of funds would help with accountability, not making it a responsibility of the whole DAO.
2. Introduce regular feedback and reporting cycle. Enforcing consistent reporting and feedback cycles would help the DAO remain informed and updated on the progress and performance of the collaboration with Flipside.
3. Ensure that the elected supervisors are answerable to the DAO. They should be required to report their findings and assessments to the DAO, thereby maintaining transparency and accountability.
4. Grant supervisors the authority to halt funds distribution in cases of misuse.
5. Empower the DAO to revoke the supervisor’s mandate and elect a new one.

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

In our view it’s not necessarily a tradeoff, as DAOs we need to incorporate delegation mechanisms from traditional organizations.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

We would vote: Full Reimbursement

We are leaning towards a full refund because that was the outcome of the first vote. To have it questioned sets a dangerous precedent and shatters confidence in the DAO’s decision-making process. Having said that, we find this particular case to be very interesting and a good example of how the current governance mechanisms do not have the proper tools in place to make the right decisions. Jumping to a vote way too early leads to contentious vote results and creates more problems than it solves.

Languages I speak and write:
English, Polish

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

We are delegates and governance participants in other protocols in the L2 space (including Optimism, Hop Protocol).

[Cryptospb]

Name : Cryptospb

ENS : 0xDe96e75c7160d70a447a72AFdb75DDfA1455c808

Tally Profile URL : Tally | cryptospb.eth

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

Public Goods funding

Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
DAO its a key to decentralization!

[Drew]

Name: Andrew
Address: 0x0e1e6068e7317Ddd31235F559fcd71bDa68Cc59a
Tally: Tally | 0x0e1e...c59a

Areas of interest:

• Improving Governance participation
• Supporting Infrastructure
• Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Sample Voting Issue 1:
As a delegate, I would vote against the Uniswap proposal as it currently stands. While I believe that bounties can be an effective way to attract new users to Uniswap, the proposal gives Flipside crypto too much control over the allocation of UNI and oversight of the program. In my view, this could lead to centralization of power and create an unfair advantage for Flipside.

Sample Voting Issue 2:
It would depend on the specific circumstances of the hack and the impact on the affected parties. In general, it is important to balance the needs of the affected parties with the overall health and sustainability of the project. Full reimbursement may not always be feasible or sustainable, but partial reimbursement or other forms of compensation may be appropriate in certain cases. Ultimately, any decision should be made with transparency and community input to ensure fairness and accountability.

[Silkenoa]

Name:

• Silke Noa

Wallet Address or ENS:

• silkenoa.eth

Tally Profile URL:

• SilkeNoa

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:

• As a crypto lawyer and legal engineer I am particularly interested in ensuring Arbitrum’s long viability as a L2 with a focus on dispute-resistant and anti-capture governance, decentralization and useability.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

1. How would you vote?

• Against

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

• As this is an important proposal for the community, more effort should be made to ensure stakeholders are aware of the proposal and procedures should have been put in place to discourage last minute voting. Also, mechanisms could be considered to exclude the votes of persons who directly benefit from the proposal. Potentially, the DAO bylaws or Constitution should have a conflict of interest provision. With more time, proposals from competing service providers could also be procured to ensure there is competition and less decentralization.

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

• This is one of the main challenges of DAOs and requires careful consideration. To make the DAO less prone to capture, the proposal process needs to be as open as possible. The same goes for the execution process.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

3. Split Reimbursement

• Generally, there should not be an expectation for a DAO to reimburse users who suffered from a hack. The industry is nascent and bugs that allow for hacks happen even to the best protocols. Anyone participating in the industry is aware that hacks can happen. At the same time, the DAO has to do its best to exclude the possibility of a hack. So best ecosystem standards for smart contract auditing should be followed. In the present case, I would therefore have recommended a split reimbursement.

Languages I speak and write:

• English, German, Arabic, French

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:

• I have no conflict of interest, particularly, I am not a delegate in any other Protocol DAOs. I am a validator for Gnosis Chain and hold GNO tokens, however I do not see this as a conflict of interest.