Dear community,
With a Master’s degree in Engineering and 25 years of diverse experience in engineering and management roles, I feel my background is well-suited for a governance role in the Decentralized Voices Program. Here are some of the key reasons why I should receive W3F delegation:
-
Governance Participation:
My on-chain history shows long-term activity in governance, including participation in almost 1000 Gov1 and OpenGov referenda on Polkadot and Kusama, with 99% participation rate on all OpenGov proposals. -
Experience:
I have submitted several proposals as an OpenGov proposer, giving me understanding and experience from both the proposer and voter perspectives. I am also experienced with the Bounties as I served as a Bounty Curator and a recipient in several bounty programs. Besides this, I am an active participant in both Polkadot and Kusama 1KV program. -
Pioneer:
Very early in the Kusama OpenGov era, realizing the importance of having integrity in governance, I initiated the audit initiative trying to improve the quality of governance through OpenCommunity Governance initiative.
Project Evaluation and Criteria
The evaluation of proposal quality will follow criteria defined in the Treasury Proposal Template, which is accessible on the Polkadot treasury site. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
- Context
- Is the project context and background presented in clear terms that can be fully understood and assessed?
- Has the discussion topic been open for a minimum period of one week, and have all questions and concerns been addressed and answered?
- Problem
- Is the problem the proposal is trying to solve explained in clean and concise terms?
- Proposal
- Is the proposal solution described with a sufficient amount of information?
- Are similar projects or proposals listed and explained in terms of how they differ from this proposal?
- Are the milestones to achieve the goals of the project clearly defined?
- Are milestones split into smaller detailed work tasks with deliverables, resources, and descriptions?
- Is the timeline with tasks/activities listed in chronological order clear and accurate?
- Who is your target audience?
- Budget
- Is the budget clear, transparent, and broken down into direct cost categories?
- Are budget costs comparable to similar treasury proposals?
- Deliverables
- Are key deliverables clear and outline progress towards the proposed solution?
- Are project objectives/success criteria clearly defined with measurable targets where possible?
- Is the reporting process defined to inform the community about the progress and current status of the project?
- Team and Reputation
- Are the project team members introduced with relevant details?
- What is the team reputation from previous involvements in the Kusama/Polkadot grants/bounties/tasks/treasury proposals
- Overall Importance
- How critical and beneficial is the identified problem and the proposed solution for the ecosystem?
OpenGov Game Theory
I recognize the complexity of on-chain governance as a multi-layered continuous game. While the first layer involves direct interactions with proposals and voting based on Project evaluation outcome, additional layers may include voting interactions, reputation systems and other adaptive mechanisms.
In the context of game theory, my voting philosophy will be following the Tit for Tat strategy, well known for its simplicity, effectiveness, and promotion of cooperative behavior.
1. Clear
Transparency and predictability are very important in this strategy. Every voting action taken, from supporting a proposal to adjusting stances based on participant behavior, is made clear to all participants. By ensuring that my voting decisions are predictable and understandable, I promote an environment of trust and cooperation where proposers are well aware of predetermined cooperation rules and can predict my voting decision.
2. Nice and Cooperative:
The goal is to initiate interactions with a presumption of cooperation. This approach mirrors the initial cooperative move in tit-for-tat, aiming to build a foundation of trust and mutual benefit. For example, when a new governance proposal is submitted, I will support the proposal if it is in line with community values and guidelines, and meets all the project evaluation criteria.
3. Forgiving:
Recognizing the dynamic nature of blockchain governance, forgiveness is an important part of the voting strategy. If a proposal is rejected due to certain concerns but later revised to address these issues, I will reassess the previous outcome, promoting a forgiving approach to previous disagreements. This flexibility allows for recovery from missteps so that the governance process remains constructive and focused on continuous improvement.
4. Retaliatory:
While the basic principle is cooperation, I will maintain a stance of proportional response to actions that undermine collective goals or violate governance norms. For example, if a participant consistently supports proposals that are deemed harmful or against the community interest, I will adjust my stance towards future proposals associated with that participant, adopting a more scrutinizing approach. This retaliation is not punitive but aims to safeguard the governance process from being hijacked by consistently uncooperative behavior.
If you support my OpenGov philosophy and wish to delegate your votes to CoinStudio please delegate to these accounts:
Polkadot: 14d2kv44xf9nFnYdms32dYPKQsr5C9urbDzTz7iwU8iHb9az
Kusama: GCMGu8sjEuEZuMZavo5PLvAhr8fJXAty76jDV1YPquG9erp
Thank you!
