Name: Cryptorell (individual)
Wallet Address or ENS: 0xd304D6028e5C3e235A43De2005AF563914A2Cd22
Tally Profile URL: Tally | Cryptorell
What area are you most interested in contributing to? choose up to two tags:
- DeFi development on Arbitrum
- Gaming development on Arbitrum
Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg â how aggressive should we be in liquidity mining, what is the goal of the DAO?
My primary focus would be to help the DAO achieve its goals efficiently, effectively and securely while attracting and maintaining an engaged and active community in order to maintain a strong and engaged community in developing high-quality and innovative DeFi platforms. quality⌠My main objectives for the DAO would be the following:
DeFi Platform Development at Arbitrum: One of my goals would be to work with the Arbitrum development team to create a robust and reliable DeFi platform that provides users with an exceptional user experience. I would make sure that the platform has advanced security features, a user-friendly user interface, and a wide range of investment options.
Effective DAO Governance: Another of my responsibilities would be to work with DAO members to ensure effective governance. We would establish clear processes and procedures to make decisions fairly and transparently. I would also make sure that DAO members have a say in decision making, and that decisions are made for the benefit of the community at large.
Active and Engaged Community: Building an active and engaged community is critical to the success of the DAO. I would make sure that the community feels heard and appreciated, and that their ideas and suggestions are taken into account.
Regarding the development of DeFi platforms at Arbitrum, I will focus on building tools and resources that allow developers to create high-quality applications and smart contracts more easily and efficiently. This will include creating open source libraries and organizing hackathons and community events to encourage innovation and collaboration.
In addition, I will work closely with other members of the Arbitrum community to ensure that security and privacy best practices are integrated into all DeFi platforms built on the network. I will also ensure that the DAO has the necessary resources to conduct regular security audits to ensure that the platform is protected against any potential threats.
Finally, I will focus on making the DAO attractive and accessible to the community, promoting inclusion and diversity. This will include creating developer incentive programs and promoting DeFi education so the community can better understand and participate in building these platforms.
In summary, my focus will be to build and maintain a strong and engaged community, foster innovation and collaboration, integrate security and privacy best practices, and promote inclusion and diversity.
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.
In this case, it seems that there were concerns about centralization of power and the favoritism of one analytics service provider, Flipside, in the Uniswap bounty program. Specifically, the allocation and oversight committees had a majority of members from Flipside, which raised concerns about the allocation of UNI tokens and the overall transparency of the program.
To address these concerns, one possible solution could be to increase the representation of other analytics service providers on the committees to ensure a more diverse and decentralized decision-making process. Additionally, implementing a transparent and public system for allocating UNI tokens and overseeing the program could help ensure fairness and prevent any potential abuses of power.
Ultimately, any program that relies on incentives and bounties should prioritize fairness, transparency, and decentralization to ensure that it aligns with the principles of decentralized finance (DeFi) and promotes the growth of the ecosystem.
Prompts to Answer:
- How would you vote?
Against
- What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
Based on the concerns raised, I would suggest the following amendments to the proposal:
- Increase the number of seats on the allocation committee and oversight committee for other analytics service providers. This would ensure that the program is not favoring one service provider and that there is fair representation from all parties involved.
- Decrease the number of seats on the allocation committee for Flipside. While itâs important to have their expertise in the decision-making process, they shouldnât have an overwhelming amount of power in the allocation of UNI bounties.
- Create clear guidelines and criteria for the allocation of UNI bounties. This would ensure that the allocation committee is making decisions based on objective factors rather than personal biases or preferences.
- Increase transparency around the programâs decision-making process. This could be achieved through regular reporting and public disclosure of the programâs activities and decisions. This would increase trust in the program and ensure that all parties involved are held accountable.
By implementing these changes, the proposal would address the concerns raised about centralization of power and favoritism towards one service provider. Additionally, it would create a more transparent and fair allocation process that benefits all parties involved.
- How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
Itâs a complex issue that requires a thoughtful and nuanced approach. On the one hand, centralization of authority can lead to quicker decision-making and efficient execution of tasks. On the other hand, it can lead to a concentration of power and potential abuse of that power.
One way to approach this tradeoff is to strive for a balance between centralization and decentralization. This means delegating decision-making power to multiple stakeholders, such as community members, developers, and service providers, and ensuring that no one group has too much control or influence. Itâs also important to establish clear guidelines and protocols for decision-making, and to ensure transparency and accountability in the process.
Additionally, itâs important to regularly reassess the distribution of decision-making power and adjust as necessary. As the needs and dynamics of the ecosystem evolve, so too should the governance structure. This requires ongoing dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders to ensure that the system remains fair, efficient, and effective.
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?
The first step would be to assess the circumstances of the hack, the extent of the damage caused to the affected parties, and the impact on the overall ecosystem.
If it was determined that the hack was a result of a vulnerability in the smart contract or protocol, steps would need to be taken to address the vulnerability and prevent future hacks. This could involve updating the smart contract code, conducting a security audit, or implementing additional security measures.
In terms of reimbursing those affected by the hack, it would be important to ensure that the reimbursement process is fair and transparent. This could involve setting up a process to verify the extent of the damage suffered by each affected party and determining an appropriate amount of reimbursement based on that.
In general, it would be important to prioritize the security and integrity of the ecosystem, while also taking into account the needs and interests of the affected parties. It may also be helpful to engage with the broader community and seek input and feedback on how to best address the 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)
- Full Reimbursement
- No Reimbursement
- Split Reimbursement
Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.
I would select Split Reimbursement for those affected upon manual review. Full reimbursement canât be done because this would lead to another hack. No reimbursement would lead to loss of trust in the ecosystem
Languages I speak and write: English (C1) and Spanish (Native)
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, itâs critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrumâs best interest in mind, so please affirm that you donât 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.
