Name: cp0x (organization)

Wallet Address: 0x6f9BB7e454f5B3eb2310343f0E99269dC2BB8A1d

Tally: Tally | cryptocp0x

Areas of interest:

• DeFi development on Arbitrum
• Supporting Infrastructure

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
Arbitrum DAO should pursue the goals of developing the Arbitrum ecosystem. Since the understanding of “development” is subjective, in which direction development should go should be determined by the skin in the game of the voters. Who has more skin in the game, he gets more voice power (better not linearly).

The main thing is that the public interest in an ecosystem should be above the individual if it conflicts.

But it is better to try to build architecture and systems that have co-directed initiatives for society and individuals, when it is beneficial for the individual to help each other and whole community/DAO.

Sample Voting Issue 1 - UniSwap/Flipside Bounty

How would you vote?
Against

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
I think the proposal is very well crafted in terms of what needs to be achieved (sticky liquidity), analysis of those results and possible adjustments, and community building, but I also feel that decentralization suffers in this proposal. And my opinion, that decentralization matters a lot.

In my opinion, Flipside should have received a maximum of 2 seats in the allocation committee, not have seats at all on the Oversight committee, and in addition to Flipside, at least the same conditions should have been offered to other analytical services, and criteria for choosing between these analytical tools should have been set, otherwise it looks like nepotism.

How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
I don’t see a big problem here. A decentralized community should clearly set goals and make competitive competitions for these tasks, and competent teams that win these competitions must perform these tasks by virtue of their competencies without agreeing on each decision. The progress of the task and the result of the solution of the task should be checked by the committee, which changes with sufficient frequency.

Sample Voting Issue 2 - Rari Hack Reinbursement

Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?
I think the protocol should have at least split reimbursement, cause the team behind the protocol are ultimately the root cause of the hack, as they are the ones who wrote the code (users have responsibility on that too, but less).

Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.

At the moment, almost all projects have a project treasury, or even a special fund for “contingencies” that must be used. I think these funds should always be used to cover the loss of users of the protocol if the protocol invited users to use it (disclaimers that this is alpha or beta version of protocol should not be taken seriously, no one ever looks at them). Also, if the protocol continues to generate income, then some part of this income should also continue to be reimbursed so as not to fail the faith of the people who first try the protocol with their money.

The only situation where I think a user should not receive a refund is when the product had no marketing whatsoever and someone just deployed the contract to the network for their own purposes without naming it as a product anywhere, without having any marketing or offering to use it. In this case, the blame for the loss of money lies entirely with the user, since he himself chose to use someone else’s contract on the network.

Languages I speak and write: English, Russian, Ukrainian, Spanish, Portuguese

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I confirm, that based on my understanding of the situation i dont have any conflicts of interest that would prevent me from using my best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.