Name (organization or individual): Crypto A S, Growth & Ops at the Byte Masons

Wallet Address or ENS: 0x406eb55a7636cd2782fcdfad8df6bd767d13cbf1

Tally Profile URL Tally | Crypto A S

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

• Public Goods funding
• DeFi development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

• Building a passionate community by setting up easy-to-use communication platforms, ensuring fair and transparent decision-making, and encouraging community-driven projects
• Creating innovative solutions by identifying market gaps and building new products or services, fostering experimentation while thinking outside the box, and collaborating with other experts and projects to find synergies / integrations that push the boundary of the industry
• Focus on long-term success and growth by establishing and refining the governance model to remain inclusive and transparent while forging partnerships with other projects and organizations to expand reach /impact
• Implementing an effective liquidity mining initiative for network growth and adoption is critical to driving user adoption, however, it requires consistent reviews to ensure balance is achieved between a reward system that drives long-term commitment / usage and ensuring the focus of users doesn’t stray from the primary missions / goals of the DAO. I’m of the opinion that liquidity mining initiatives should act in waves to move from an aggressive position, to one where the effectiveness of that stance is measured, then adjusted moving into the next phase.

I’m not sure that any particular DAO has achieved an optimal model yet but we need to continue to push the industry status quo until we get it right.

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

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview 109

• 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? If the proposal passed, Flipside should only have 1 seat on the Allocation Committee and zero on the Oversight Committee to avoid conflicts of interest.

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

Striking the right balance between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done is crucial for any organization but especially critical in the context of a Web3 DAO (there have been plenty of examples for both arguments from the last couple of years). In my perspective, a successful approach involves progressive decentralization, starting with a more centralized structure for rapid decision-making and development, and gradually shifting towards decentralized governance as the DAO matures and users become bought into the success of the DAO (not always easy to achieve). Establishing a clear governance structure and designing a tokenomics model that aligns stakeholders’ interests ensures the effective functioning of both centralized and decentralized components.

I’m of the opinion that DAOs should utilize a hybrid decision-making model that combine centralized and decentralized processes in ways that actually make sense. It should facilitate effective communication between all parties however possible and provide a path forward to full decentralization. There should also be periodic evaluations and adjustments of the governance model to allow the organization to adapt to changing market conditions. This will also ensure both efficiency and inclusivity in decision-making while not sacrificing how long it takes to reach social consensus.

Sample Voting Issue 2:
Issue Overview:
Overview Link 1 384
Overview Link 2 47

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)

Full Reimbursement, if there were no issues with the vote then the first vote should have been honored.

Languages I speak and write: English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: I have voted in DAOs governance votes in the past but otherwise have no conflicts 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, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t 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.