Name: Brinc finance (Brinc.fi)

Wallet Address or ENS

0x30d5D30e43b6167a345f3D71d61673464e16d711

Tally Profile URL

Tally

Brinc.fi’s DAO Profile

DAO memberships, votes and proposal

DAO memberships, votes and proposal

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

• DeFi development and ecosystem on Arbitrum
• Improving real Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO

We believe that the Arbitrum DAO should primarily focus on two areas:

1. Supporting the development of new and needed applications
2. Helping onboard new users who would benefit from the applications on Arbitrum

As a project that is aiming to solve some of the fundamental problems in defi surrounding value. Brinc.fi is looking to onboard massive user adoption by creating real intrinsic value for users via its yield vaults exclusively on Arbitrum.

Sample Voting Issue 1

1. Against
2. This proposal is asking for UNI tokens from treasury to be deployed to generate yield. I would reject this proposal as it looks like a plan to generate additional income from existing treasury without providing enough information on exactly what the yield forecast is and how it will actually be achieved. In the proposal they “assume” a 30% APR rather than providing data and analyses on how the 30% would be generated i.e. historical yield rates.
3. As an alternative to deploying UNI to external defi apps to generate yield, I would propose that UNI increase its LP fees on users so that it is generating real yield.

Sample Voting Issue 2

The first vote should have triggered a trustless execution of the hack repayment. It’s unclear what to do after two such votes when neither had executable code tied to their outcomes. Thus, we would never put such a monumental vote to governance without the executable code attached.

The reimbursement amount should be determined by the token holders as they have the long term interest of the project in mind. If executable code had been attached to the first vote, they would have fully reimbursed the hack victims. If token holders directly voted for this code to be executed, it would have been the right outcome.

Our Response: Full Reimbursement

Given that the DAO had the funds to repay the victims it should do so immediately. Also, the first vote should not have been overturned to the detriment of the victims; this goes against the immutability for DAO votes. The first vote should have also triggered a trustless execution of the hack repayment. I feel that significant changes should have been made to the executive committee at FEI as they did not handle their ICO nor this hack with proper diligence and execution.

Languages I speak and write

English, Korean