Hydranet DAO
0x5B6e889B05D5a23C8f1E19Ed9E54B4f03dF01c51
What area are you most interested in contributing to? choose up to two tags:
- DeFi development on Arbitrum
- Supporting Infrastructure
Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
The most important goals for the Arbitrum DAO should be:
- Network Growth and Adoption: Increase the adoption of the Arbitrum network by attracting more users, developers, and decentralized applications (dApps) through marketing, partnerships, developer support, and the creation of tools and resources
- Technical Development and Innovation: Continuously improve and expand the capabilities of the Arbitrum network by funding research, development, and innovation in Layer 2 scaling, security, and usability, including optimizing the protocol and enhancing interoperability.
- Decentralized Governance: Develop a transparent and inclusive governance system that empowers token holders to participate in decision-making and shape the future of the Arbitrum network, refining voting mechanisms and encouraging community engagement.
By focusing on these goals, the Arbitrum DAO can contribute to the growth and success of the Arbitrum network and the broader Ethereum ecosystem, helping to address the challenges of scalability and improve the user experience for all participants.
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:
-
How would you vote?
Against -
What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
We would suggest the following amendments:
-
Balance representation: Adjust the allocation and oversight committee seats to ensure a more balanced representation. This could involve reducing Flipside Crypto’s seats and including representatives from other analytics service providers and key stakeholders within the community where applicable.
-
Collaboration and competition: Encourage collaboration between multiple analytics service providers by creating a framework that allows them to contribute to the program’s success. This will foster a competitive environment that can lead to better outcomes and innovation.
-
Transparent decision-making process: Establish a clear and transparent decision-making process for the allocation of UNI to bounties and oversight of the program. This can help to build trust and ensure that all parties are accountable for their actions.
By incorporating these amendments, the proposal can address the concerns related to centralization of power, lack of competition and collaboration, potential conflicts of interest, and community concerns. By creating a more balanced, transparent, and inclusive approach, the program can more effectively attract new users to Uniswap and foster a sense of trust and cooperation within the community.
-
How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
When approaching the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done, the key is to find a balance that maximizes efficiency while maintaining decentralization principles. Here are some strategies to achieve this balance: -
Delegate tasks: Divide tasks into smaller, manageable units and distribute them across different teams or individuals. This approach can increase efficiency by allowing multiple tasks to be executed simultaneously while still maintaining a level of decentralization.
-
Establish clear roles and responsibilities: Clearly define roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder, team, or individual involved in the decision-making process. This can help streamline decision-making and minimize conflicts while maintaining the decentralized nature of the organization.
-
Create efficient decision-making processes: Implement mechanisms that allow for efficient decision-making without centralizing power. This could include time-bound voting, a consensus-based approach, or tiered decision-making structures, depending on the specific context.
In striking the right balance between centralization and efficiency, organizations can maintain the core principles of decentralization while ensuring that tasks are executed effectively and in a timely manner. The key is to continuously evaluate and adapt the organizational structure and processes to optimize the balance between the two. By doing so, the DAO can leverage the benefits of decentralization, such as increased trust, collaboration, and innovation, etc. while maintaining overall competence and integrity.
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.
Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?
In the event of a security exploit, such as the one experienced by Rari, it is crucial to prioritize the trust and credibility of the platform. Our preferred approach would be to fully reimburse affected parties of the exploit within reason, in order to promote the following:
- Trust and credibility: Reimbursing affected parties helps maintain trust in the platform and demonstrates a commitment to user safety.
- Responsibility: The platform should minimize risks and address vulnerabilities, and reimbursing affected parties acknowledges this responsibility.
- Incentives for future security: Reimbursing affected parties can incentivize the platform to improve security measures.
However, if there are insufficient funds to fully reimburse all affected parties, a split reimbursement approach should be considered. This approach would involve proportionally distributing the available funds among the affected users, ensuring that each party receives at least some compensation for their losses. The advantages of this option include:
- Fairness: A proportional distribution of limited resources ensures fair treatment of all affected parties.
- Maintaining trust and credibility: Providing partial compensation still demonstrates the platform’s commitment to addressing the issue and taking responsibility for the security breach.
- Incentivizing continued platform use: Partial compensation can serve as an incentive for affected users to remain engaged with the platform.
In conclusion, while full reimbursement of affected parties is the preferred approach to maintain trust, credibility, and community engagement, a split reimbursement option should be considered if full reimbursement is not feasible.
Languages I speak and write:
Our community speaks/writes many languages, but our core team speaks English, German, Spanish,Turkish, Finnish, Japanese, and French
Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
We have no conflicts of interest.
