User profile image

Delegating 529.2 ARB to:

Bonsai and Umami Finance

User profile image
Bonsai DAO

Delegating 529.2 ARB to:

Bonsai and Umami Finance

Bonsai DAO, a pioneering MetaDAO, propels DeFi innovation with a network of subDAOs, each adding unique value. Our ecosystem fosters growth and rewards stakeholders, setting new benchmarks in decentralized finance.

It is our duty as some of the forerunning builders and longterm holders of GMX to see the platform continue to deliver value to its users and holders. With over $10m TVL in GMX and plans to expand our GMX based product offerings by way of our SubDAO, Umami, we hope you consider us as a trusted delegate when delegating your tokens.

0x8E52...0178

Arbitrum Delegation Statement

Umami DAO

Wallet Address: 0x8E52cA5A7a9249431F03d60D79DDA5EAB4930178

Tally Account being made manually by Tally team soon.

Umami DAO’s Specific Focuses:
DeFi development on Arbitrum
Supporting Infrastructure

Arbitrum DAO Goals:
We believe the goals of Arbitrum DAO are to:

  1. Give the people who use Arbitrum a voice in how it operates and progresses to the future by allowing anyone to formulate an idea and effect change with that idea via governance.
  2. Incentivize participation in the Ecosystem in a sustainable way. This does not mean basic liquidity mining so that yield farmers can profit, we would advocate for special ways to incentivize use of the network such as specially placed grants to projects so they themselves can incentivize use and especially to new builders joining the network. We must think long term here.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

How would you vote?
Against

What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
Though Flipside might not have a majority of voting power on these committees they have a large minority and could affect change how they see fit by swaying a small portion of remaining votes to their side. A Possible amendment would be to lessen their seats on the allocation committee and increase the amount of seats on the oversight committee to a total of 5 allowing Flipside to keep their 1 seat.

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

A DAO must be effective in its operations and functionality but the name also stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization, giving any one person or entity too much say at the expense of effectiveness jeopardizes the very essence of its existence which is to give all users a say in how things are done.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

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

Full Reimbursement, the DAO voted to ratify this reimbursement and should not have the ability to go back on its word unless there are clearly defined measures in the original proposal that would make it null and void should those measures take effect or if the original vote called for a second vote.

Languages we Speak and Write:

Umami DAO has elected Core Contributors from all over the world that are fluent in the following languages:
English
French
Hindi
Slovenian
Serbo-croatian
Punjabi
Italian
Spanish

Conflicts of Interest:

Umami DAO is a functional DAO and revenue generating project native to Arbitrum where we exclusively operate and have committed to building. If chosen as a delegate Umami DAO will vote with its multisig treasury wallet where there are 5 signers (⅗ needed to complete a transaction). In addition to using a multisig, we would also receive feedback from our community of thousands of $UMAMI token holders and by extension Arbitrum users, whether that be through a formal snapshot or a more informal survey on what stance Umami DAO should take on an Arbitrum DAO proposal. We do not have any conflicts and will vote in the best interests of Arbitrum users en masse as we are those users.

This information was sourced from https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/31/809


ProposalVotes forVotes againstVoted?

206.39M

8.67M

No vote

193.12M

4.05K

No vote

193.92M

266.93K

No vote

247.89M

362.6K

No vote

263.67M

16K

No vote