Name: litocoen (Individual)

ENS: lito.eth

Tally:

Areas of interest:

• DeFi development on Arbitrum
• Public goods funding

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
Beyond the obvious goal of continuing to improve the technology underlying Arbitrum chains, I believe the DAO’s main task should be focusing on ecosystem development. In crypto more than anywhere else, ecosystems have network effects. The more useful new applications are being built on Arbitrum chains, the more existing applications benefit. Both from the influx of new users entering the ecosystem as well as new integration possibilities and B2B partnerships.

Attracting these projects and builders to Arbitrum and making sure existing applications flourish will be paramount in the months and years to come. As the ecosystem scales, the core team alone will be overwhelmed by this task and this is where the Arbitrum community can come together and help in an unbiased and transparent way.

I think targeted liquidity mining can be highly effective at bootstrapping new apps & protocols the DAO feels optimistic about and would like to see succeed. However, it will be important to define clear guidelines and goals to avoid the DAO treasury becoming a slush fund.

For
I thought the proposal suggested a clever way to fund itself through yield generating activities on Uniswap. Getting quality external contributors involved is the best path for a DAO to scale operations.

It is impossible to make everyone happy and include every analytics provider just to have a balance of power. A DAO, just like a company, wants to see results and not 5 different analytics companies overseeing a committee with the typical in-fighting that this would result in.

The DAO has to choose the best people for a job and ignore the voices that have a clear conflict of interest (in this case e.g Dune or related VC’s).

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

• I think a diverse committee of individuals is often better than selecting a single company or service provider for an initiative like this to make sure there are enough checks and balances.
• Starting small and nimble is often better and less controversial than requesting $25m at the first go. People are mistrusting so it’s better to request a small amount, deliver results and work your way up.

Split payment
I think a split payment would have been the best path forward here. On the one hand I think retail investors in DeFi and DAO’s shouldn’t assume that just because a DAO is well capitalized, there’s a 100% money-back guarantee in case of a hack. On the other hand, the DAO (unless it plans to wind down operations after the hack) needs to have sufficient funds to have a credible shot at continuing its activities, which includes developing a new protocol, legal fees, payroll etc. So it’s very much a case by case thing and context matters as well. In the case of Fei, it seems like the core team had previously made promises to make users whole. In general, I think it’s in the best interest of a DAO to make users whole to the best extent possible without overly stretching its financial capabilities.

Languages I speak and write: German, English, French and Spanish

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: I am a minor delegate in the Optimism DAO but consider myself a supporter of all rollup teams. I am also a delegate in the Safe DAO and plan to become more involved in the Instadapp DAO.