Background
Name: Pingus, a member of and on behalf of Protector
Position I am applying for: Council Member
TG: @PingusProtector @749 @apingfeng
Twitter: Protector (https://x.com/nounsbuilderscn?s=20); Pingus (https://twitter.com/realpinguis); Pingfeng(https://twitter.com/byobu4); 17Commons(https://twitter.com/17commons)
Affiliations (Currently I am working with, invested in, etc.):
Pingus is a lawyer licensed in the State of New York, and he is the founder of a law firm, offering legal, regulatory and consulting services to crypto start-ups.
Pingfeng is an influencer and independent researcher in the field of creator economy and onchain governance in the Chinese Community(17k+ followers), and she hosts a Chinese crypto podcast Onchain DokodemoDoor with10k+ subscribers.
Long is an independent crypto researcher with extensive academic background in philosophy. He is focusing on political science, public policy, and philosophy theories in the crypto space.
yiqi is an independent defi/governance researcher and coder. He coordinates Protector’s governance meetings and research projects.
Apart from the above, Protector and its members are not affiliated with or invested in any other projects. We cherish our independency.
Why You
Why would You be the best candidate for this position?
Protector is a governance research squad, entirely composed of Chinese members. We are a team of four active governance researchers, consists of a diverse background, that works in conjunction with one another.
Our History
Having been in operation for almost two years, starting in October 2021, our primary emphasis from late 2021 to 2022 was on theoretical and case studies pertaining to the self-governance of public goods. We coordinated the efforts of 86 individuals to conduct seventy-five book clubs and research meetings. We transitioned towards active participation in the governance of NounsDAO at the beginning of 2023. As of November 14, 2023, we have accumulated a membership of more than 200 individuals and have independently performed due diligence on proposals numbered 237 to 438. We convene a weekly public governance research meeting for a total of 47 sessions, during which we apprise the community of noteworthy observations, insights gained from the proposals, and contentious issues.
Our Governance Philosophy
Our name, ‘Protector,’ reflects our role not as Holders or Builders, but as protectors of the community’s social fact layer. We believe that in a well-organized governance system, every value can be expressed, leading to a harmonious emergence of diversity. This necessitates a role that continually strives to present the community with the complex nature, rules, strengths, weaknesses, and values underlying events, constantly restoring distorted facts.
What do you think a good incentive application looks like?
Our primary principle is to vote in ‘Against’ only. Our fundamental philosophy is not to define what are good incentives, but to stop applications with detrimental effects entering our sphere of discussion.
We can define applications with detrimental incentives as follows:
- Unverifiable, difficult-to-track, or ambiguous metrics. Applications with aforementioned characteristics will trap the community in pointless debates and impose substantial accountability costs.
- Projects fail to capture substantial value, such as TVL or more long-term users. This may cause ample discord among token holders and ecosystem contributors as a result of the inadequate return on grants.
- The application is deliberately intricate. It imposes an implicit exclusivity to the interpretation of the application. Said interpretation is restricted to technically proficient bureaucrats within the community. Those who possess a comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of the Arb ecosystem, such as users, researchers, or projects, will encounter challenges in incorporating their ideas into the community’s vision, therefore impeding its growth.
With regard to incentive applications, we prefer to exercise caution. We adopt a more measured approach in examine applications that posse radical ideals. We are in the opinion of leaving ideals to the hands of community, applications are the not the proper venue to express such radical ideals. With respect to the definition of “good”, we forfeit our right to define and allow the community to develop it organically. Our entire focus is directed towards safeguarding the ethos against distortion, which could lead to inequity and perpetual internal conflict.
What are your goals for this program?
Protect, conserve, and stop waste.
Adhering to our governance philosophy, during our tenure as council member, we will only cast vote in against or abstention when rendering the selection decisions. However, we are not forfeiting our rights to exam and express our unbiased view on each applications. On contrary, our neutral position will only strengthen our stance to think without banister.
Throughout the governance history of Nouns DAO, we have witness countless instances of waste of public fund. Often, they are funded because of a noble cause but with wrong means or is channelled through wrong hands. Witnessing projects like such being funded and supported by DAO treasury, the health of morale and ethos were severely tempered. Therefore, we have to protect not only the fund of this Long Term Incentives Pilot Program, but also the values our community embraced.
We view our roles as the following: 1. prevent and deter the intentional wrongdoers from causing irreparable damages to the overall health of the community and its eco system; 2. explain, express, and debate each note worthy applications to the active community voters; 3. for the majority of community members, we shall protect the plurality of discussion, enabling the community to grow its values organically.