Name (organization or individual)
0x0nur (individual)

Wallet Address or ENS
0xA2A2602bC84371E6A7af8b88467E8b3f10aa7658

Tally Profile URL
Tally | 0x0nur.eth

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

• Public Goods funding
• DeFi development on Arbitrum
• Gaming development on Arbitrum
• Improving Governance participation

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg — how aggressive should we be in liquidity mining, what is the goal of the DAO?
DAO is not the purpose, it is the tool to achieve the community’s goals.
The main goal of DAO is to maintain and ensure the community trust in the effective and decentralised decision making. In other words, a DAO’s main goal should be to ensure all members believe that DAO works and will continue to work in the future.

Please share your stance on issues that were raised previously, in other communities, as described below:

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

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

• DAO proposals for grants should not be pegged to fiat, especially at these amounts. 25M USD grant over two years no matter the price of UNI is a very hard burden on UNI to carry. It should have been based on UNI.
• Flipside should be introduced and doxxed (where needed) in the introduction.
• It should be explained what is DAO’s interest in giving away bounties to user who has not touched Uniswap before. I personally doubt if people who has not touched Uniswap in web3 are the target audience for a bounty.
• Pilot program data should be substantiated. What is the understanding from ‘retention’? Did they retain after pilot bounties ended, or did they hold on because there were more bounties?
• DAO should have discussed multiple projects, maybe there could be multiple proposals from different projects, not just Flipside.
• DAO paying for the project owner’s employee salaries, database and node management does not make sense.
• Giving control of funds only to farm yield should be well thought of.
• 3 people from Flipside in the allocation committee is not acceptable, not only because they are over-represented but also because Flipside’s all costs are reimbursed and their corporate interests are not aligned with the DAO. Seats should either consist of ethically unbiased opinion leaders and or DAO members that have aligned individual interests.

3. How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
   With proper checks and balances protecting the DAO’s interests, it could be accepted but very important that temporary deviations do not go against the principles, ideas and goals of the DAO, ehich brought the community together in the first place.

Sample Voting Issue 2:
Issue Overview:

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)

2. No Reimbursement

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

This is a textbook case showing the need for DAO Constitutions. I am a lawyer and in law, either in court judgment or jury verdict, same questions shall not be asked twice, unless there is material changes that revealed later which could have affected the decision. A well-structured DAO (either by code or community consensus) should not allow proposals to ask same questions based on same material facts. But if somehow asked, then the most recent DAO decision should be honored. I was not able to find the vetoed proposal on the web to check if there is any material difference to what the DAO said no and yes.
Ethically I am in favor of reimbursement in a hack of this nature, so personally it is a desired outcome for me. But preserving the trust in the DAO is much more important. Second proposal should have been clear in what it is asking or should not be allowed to ask the same question.

Languages I speak and write:
English, Turkish, Italian with (beginner Spanish and Swedish)

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
Diversity of opinions is critical to making progress and determining the future direction of the Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize and celebrate the fact that delegates will have diverse views and we both encourage and anticipate good-faith debates in the governance process. That being said, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent you from using your best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

I do affirm that I don’t 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.