Name: Bob-Rossi

Wallet Address or ENS: bobrossi.eth

Tally Profile URL: (Tally | bobrossi.eth)

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

• Supporting Infrastructure
• Tooling, Improving protocol decentralization

Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:

The goal of the DAO should be growing the Arbitrum network as safely as possible, with utmost care being taken to focus on staying decentralized. L2 solutions are going to be the backbone of Ethereum’s ability to scale in the near future, so it is important when voting on AIPs to consider how they will affect both the Arbitrum protocol as well as the L2 ecosystem as a whole.

I believe liquidity mining is a useful tool to attract users, however incentives should look to stay about in-line with other platforms. Enough to sustain user growth, but not going overboard to create an over-reliance on something that is not a permanent solution.

Sample Voting Issue 1:

I would vote “For” with an amendment to reduce the number of Flipside committee members to 2 of 7. I believe this strikes a fair balance between giving Flipside a bigger say in votes without pushing the boundaries of centralization risk. In a 3 of 7 scenario where the 3 Flipside members become bad actors, it would only take one additional person to put the project at risk. While there is technically a tradeoff of in efficiencies, I believe that a group of 7 should be small enough to not be a major issue.

I also believe a discussion on the payment periods is warranted. Given the size and scope of the project, quarterly / semi-annual payouts may have been more appropriate.

Sample Voting Issue 2:

I am not well versed enough in the FEI RARI hack to speak specifically about it. Hack reimbursement comes down to very specific case-by-case determinations. Who is at fault? What are the broad-reaching consequences? How will this affect growth in the future?

Given the importance of L2s to Ethereum’s scalability, if non-reimbursement would cause a shutdown of the protocol (or scare away enough users to effectively kill it) I would likely vote ‘Yes’ to a full or partial reimbursement. Much beyond a complete collapse of Arbitrum, I’d likely be voting no. I think a very delicate balance has to be struck on these decisions. Bailing out may be necessary to keep users who would otherwise abandon the project around, but there is a real chance of subsidizing risky behavior. If projects being built on Arbitrum start cutting corners because they think they will get a bailout anyway, it would put at risk the safety of the network in totality as development shifts far to fast and loose.

I think Ethereum’s DAO hack back in 2016, and subsequent handlings of hacks, are basically in line with my views.

Languages I speak and write: English

Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
I am also a HOP delegate, which is a protocol that bridges L2 protocols together. Arbitrum is one of the L2 protocols available to bridge. That said, I am confident that this would NOT affect my ability to perform my role as an Abritrum delegate. I am looking to support the entire L2 ecosystem and would do my absolute best to not let one delegate role influence the other in a way that plays favorites. If I ever felt that was happening, or I got feedback indicating so, I would stepdown.