Name: Liz (Head of Growth at Azuki; Contributor to AnimeChain)

Wallet Address or ENS: whizwang.eth

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

My name is Liz, and I am the Head of Growth at Azuki and a contributor to the AnimeCoin Foundation, which is partnered with Azuki. I am looking to contribute to growing and nurturing the consumer crypto vertical within the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Here are my goals in terms of what I’d like to contribute to the DAO:

1) Attract and Nurture Consumer Use Cases: To ensure Arbitrum DAO remains the leading Layer 2 Ethereum ecosystem, it's essential to nurture and attract a wide array of use cases beyond DeFi. While Arbitrum excels in gaming and art, sustaining our dominance requires structured, clear support for consumer crypto apps to onboard millions of users into the Arbitrum ecosystem. This entails creating a framework to provide tactical and strategic support to consumer-oriented builders (representing gaming, art, and other consumer verticals).

2) Promote Arbitrum Technology to Consumer Builders: Help market Arbitrum technology to developers and builders, sparking interest to adopt Arbitrum as their tech stack or migrate their apps/chains to Arbitrum.

3) Advocate Arbitrum Technology to Major Consumer-Oriented Web2 Corporations: Create a systematic approach within the DAO to help educate large consumer-oriented companies about the Arbitrum ecosystem and technology (note: this is not BD, more top-of-funnel & educational).

Here’s some information about Azuki and AnimeChain, who I represent:

Azuki's mission is to transform the anime industry through crypto technology for both fans and creators. We create stories, products, and experiences that enrich the fan experience through our collections Azuki, BEANZ, Elementals, and Bobu the Bean Farmer (community-driven IP). We have generated $70M in primary sales and over $1B in secondary trading volume. With 28,000 holders worldwide and over 1,000,000 social media followers, most of whom are unaware we are a crypto project, we have successfully onboarded web2 users into web3.

Our partnerships include household names such as the F1 team Red Bull Racing, LINE FRIENDS (mascots of the LINE messaging app with 200M MAUs), Bilibili (YouTube of China), and AMBUSH (Japanese streetwear brand). Azuki visuals have been featured at Coachella, and we even sent one of our NFTs into space on a SpaceX rocket during a NASA mission. Our proven track record in onboarding web2 into web3 positions us well to lend our expertise to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Azuki is partnered with the AnimeCoin Foundation, which is launching AnimeChain, an appchain offering a modern, streamlined, unified experience for anime fans. As a contributor to the AnimeCoin Foundation, I helped conduct due diligence to choose Arbitrum as the tech stack for AnimeChain due to the builders' ethos and community passion within the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Recently, I participated in GovHack during EthCC (where my team placed in the finals) and spoke at Arbitrum Day. I am proud to represent the consumer crypto vertical via AnimeChain in the Arbitrum ecosystem and hope to lend my experience to help other consumer-oriented projects thrive.

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

I would vote against this proposal because there is a clear conflict of interest in Flipside having a voice on both the allocation committee, as well as the oversight committee. Typically, to ensure proper checks and balances, there should be separate parties represented on the allocation committee and oversight committee. In addition, there are no other analytics service providers who are part of the proposal, ensuring a monopolistic approach toward this program, which is a clear risk vector inherent in the design of the program.

2) What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?

There are some amendments that would improve the design of the stated program:

1. Better Governance Design: Flipside should reduce the number of seats on the allocation committee, and replace their seat on the oversight committee. Ideally, only one seat would be assigned to any one individual/party on both committees.
2. Competitor Checks and Balances: There should be the presence of a competitor analytics service provider, either on the allocation committee or the oversight committee to ensure that an expert voice is in the room representing different interests than Flipside.
3. Gated Disbursement of Funds: Disbursement of funds should be periodic and contingent upon meeting pre-defined KPIs.

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

There is an inherent tradeoff between centralization and efficacy, and the priority depends on the specific goals. If a program involves urgent or time-sensitive tasks, expediency might take precedence. However, in the case of the Flipside program, which deals with the disbursement of funds and is not time-sensitive, it is more important to ensure proper program design and the existence of robust controls.

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)

Full Reimbursement

The objectives of a DAO are: 1) ensure fair and decentralized coordination; 2) uphold the will of the people; and 3) protect the safety of its members. I believe that once the vote was passed to reimburse those impacted by the hack, it should not have been possible to walk that back with a second vote. I see parallels with the concept of double jeopardy – you cannot keep putting forth proposals until interested parties looking to sway the vote get the result they want. This is contrary to the principle of decentralization that is core to a DAO.

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest: I lead Growth at Azuki, and I'm a contributor to AnimeChain (Arbitrum Orbit L3 being launched by AnimeCoin Foundation)