Name (organization or individual)
Dennison Bertram (Individual)

Wallet Address or ENS
0x0610623d8E9ac26BAC3E53b9144d6E46d60691d1

Tally Profile URL (create a profile here )

Tally

dennisonbertram.eth's DAO Profile

DAO memberships, votes and proposal

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

• Public Goods funding
• Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

Liquidity mining is an important part of the decentralization process of a DAO. However, if done poorly with incentives for trivial, unimportant actions without long term alignment, it can easily become a net negative for the DAO and saddle the DAO with a large pool of disinterested, short term speculators.

Liquidity mining should be heavily weighted toward builders that bring value to the ecosystem. Builders can be technical, or non-technical, but again, it is important to screen for true value creation and balance it with the goals of long term decentralization.

The goal of the DAO should be to ensure the long term success of Arbitrum, expanding the reach and adoption of Arbitrum technology and to fund public goods built around the ecosystem.

The DAO should have a bias towards action.

Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview

Prompts to Answer:

1. How would you vote?
   Abstain

In this case, I was personally related to the parties involved in the proposal. Because of this, and my strong belief in transparency and clarity on conflicts of interest, I would abstain on this issue.

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

If I were to improve the proposal, I would have suggested to include more tools for transparency and oversight on the process. I would have looked to take the various perspectives of the parties involved and tried to find a compromise that would further the goals of the proposal and help convince those who disagreed that it was a net positive for the ecosystem.

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

The centralization of authority in limited amounts can be a net positive for the efficient of a DAO. However, this centralization of authority must be balanced by effective tools and transparency that allows the token holders to hold accountable those that are in positions of authority. There are many such tools coming available on the market now, so I think it’s reasonable that with a bias towards action, we could implement tooling solutions that can allow for efficient operation of a DAO, but without falling victim to capture and centralization.

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?

In this case I was an investor in one of the organizations attempting to get reimbursed, so I must decline to answer this example directly.

However on the general point of reimbursement, I am inclined to feel that DeFi Protocols should socialize losses as best as possible, minimizing the chance that any one participant in the ecosystem is overly harmed in the event of a hack or loss of funds. Of course this is dependent on the circumstances of the event, but while this space is still young and evolving, we should do our best to try and protect the vulnerable participants in the ecosystem from harm when possible and reasonable. This will not always be the case, or might not always be my perspective, but I’d like to err on the side of supporting users.

Languages I speak and write:

English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I am the CEO and Co-Founder of Tally.xyz. This means i am privy to a variety of early information about DAOs and events in the DAO ecosystem. This also means Tally is at times a recipient of grants from DAO’s. Because of this, I pledge to refrain from participating in votes that I would have a clear conflict of interest in.I will also seek to decentralize my own delegation (potentially through a sub-DAO) if my delegators disagree with my actions. Otherwise I will make a good faith attempt to abstain from decisions that might be considered conflicts of interests, or in the event a decision requires my participation, but might be considered a conflict of interest, I will be guided by the majority opinion of the voters who have delegated to me. This should be possible, with some further research, by implementing it at the smart contract level through a sub-DAO in a trust-minimized manner.