DefragDAO (organization)

Wallet Address: 0x5b39C3907Bd9db69B435A6cbf485915135FfFfd6

Tally Profile URL (DefragDAO profile here )

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

• DeFi development on Arbitrum
• NFT development on Arbitrum

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
First, it’s important to reiterate what a DAO is designed to do. That is to help an organization make better decisions for its future through a democratic, transparent, and autonomous process. However, Rome wasn’t built in a day. There is room for progressive decentralization which I will expand on in a question 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.

Prompts to Answer:

1. How would you vote?
   Against
2. What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
   I would make one simple amendment, give Flipside 2/7 seats on the allocation committee, requiring them to prove bounty allocation through merit rather than focusing on convincing 1 vote for majority.
3. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
   As I’ve mentioned previously, I believe in progressive decentralization for many reasons. One is upgradability, we are building the world’s most revolutionary technology. We’ve seen too many DAOs stifled early on by utopias of full decentralization that didn’t account for a rapidly growing technology platform & user base.

There are ways to enable councils for different responsibilities that can make decisions on behalf of token holders which is why delegation has existed and pre-dates even Greece!

The DAO voting system is an evolving system in itself and should have the proper avenue to upgrade its own voting system to further progress its mission.

Sample Voting Issue 2:
Issue Overview:
Overview Link 1
Overview Link 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?
i.e should parties be reimbursed for an exploit or not? (Please choose one of the below options and then elaborate upon your reasoning)

No Reimbursement

If I’m understanding correctly the first vote passed, presuming some discussion took place around the details of the hack and why people felt they should be reimbursed.

The next vote in May 2022 was a different instance with its own circumstances. I will have to presume that the discussions brought forward precedence of the previous April 2022 vote. Whatever the reasons were it seems to have been rejected. Unless there were issues of manipulation of voting, every vote should be final until the next vote is brought to light. Otherwise, the very purpose of a resolution will not be taken seriously, jeopardizing the entire voting system itself.

Languages I speak and write:
English, Russian, Spanish

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
We, DefragDAO have no conflicts of interest and want to see Arbitrum’s DAO governance succeed.