simona.eth on Agora

Delegate Statement

My reasons for wanting to be a delegate: Having worked on governance engagement strategy with Gitcoin DAO for the past 6 months as well as being a top delegate in both Gitcoin and ENS DAO has put me in a great position to support the governance efforts of Optimism and the whole ecosystem in evolving towards better models together.

My view on the Optimistic Vision 17: I have always focused my work on positive impact since my cofounding Bounties Network back in 2018. I am committed to always following that path and feel in strong alignment with Optimism values.

My view on the first three articles of the Working Constitution:

Agree - experiment early, iterate together Agree - it’s all I am thinking about and doing in all my work in this ecosystem Agree - as above Will work on Of course Already doing

My skills and areas of expertise: founder in the web3 space (Bounties Network), governance (Gitcoin, ENS, Element DAO), governance engagement strategy and tooling (Gitcoin DAO), community strategy (Status), advisory (part of many projects’ in the ecosystem’s journey including 3Box, EPNS, DoinGud and move), mentorship (Kernel), Event creator and content curator (Schelling Point, Liscon, EthDenver)

Snapshot vote - 6 months ago

[6.26] [Social] ENS Retro: An ENS DAO Retrospective & Stakeholder Analysis

For58.7K votes

Snapshot vote - 6 months ago

[6.25] [Social] Replace the Working Groups with the ENS Admin Panel

Against59K votes

As detailed in the comments on the forum, the proposal is a rushed “efficiency” measure not based on objective evidence, fully ignoring the SPP subject and somehow handwave determining that all inefficiencies within this dao come from the existence of working groups. It is a classic play to strip functions before understanding what actually needs evolving and how. Humans uncomfortable with unknown and yet to be discovered system design pathways often resort to such measures in their desire to regain a pre-existing state of known variables. Innovation does not live in that space. It is simply regression for the sake of comfort and thus incongruent with what we are all here for which is creating new and better systems vs relying on old structures.

Snapshot vote - 7 months ago

[6.24.3] [Social] Funding Request - ENS Public Goods Working Group Term 6 (Oct. Window)

For59.7K votes

Snapshot vote - 7 months ago

[6.24.2] [Social] Funding Request: ENS Ecosystem Working Group (Oct. Window)

For59.7K votes

Snapshot vote - 7 months ago

[6.24.1] [Social] Funding Request: ENS Meta-Governance Working Group Term 6 (Oct. Window)

For59.7K votes

Snapshot vote - 10 months ago

[EP6.16] [Social] Enhancing ENS Governance with Tally’s Enterprise Support

Against62.5K votes

As detailed on the forum, this should not have been a vote for the full 215k but should be a progressive endeavour scoped out through Meta-Gov working alongside Tally. https://discuss.ens.domains/t/should-the-dao-have-tally-as-a-dedicated-governance-service-provider/20937/28?u=simona_pop

Snapshot vote - about 1 year ago

[EP 6.10] [Social] Select providers for Service Provider Program Season II

Unruggable - basic, Tally, Ethereum Identity Fnd - basic, blockful - basic, Unruggable - ext, NameHash Labs, Lighthouse Labs, eth.limo - basic, Agora - basic, Unicorn.eth, Namestone, Namespace, WebHash, NONE BELOW, Ethereum Identity Fnd - ext, eth.limo - ext, Agora - ext, blockful - ext, AlphaGrowth - basic, AlphaGrowth - ext, Curia Lab, JustaName, Wildcard Labs - basic, Wildcard Labs - ext, PYOR, Enscribe, Decent, 3DNS - basic, 3DNS - ext, dWeb.host - basic, dWeb.host - ext, GovPal, x23.ai, Web3bio, ZK Email - basic, ZK Email - ext63.5K votes

Snapshot vote - about 1 year ago

[6.6.1] [Social] April Funding Request - ENS Meta-Governance Working Group Term 6

For64.7K votes

Snapshot vote - about 1 year ago

[EP 6.5] [Social] Service Provider Season 2 Vote Amendment Proposal II

For65.8K votes

Since the technical lift for both proposals seems to be similar as evidenced by the metagovernance call today 15/04 and it should incur no extra delays than the initial change, 6.5 does present technical lift, it's just small since UI providers have already developed towards 6.4 which is a bit more complex in the algorithm implementation. Listening to the conversations in the call and in the SPP TG channel - there seems to be agreement that this version satisfies the nuances requested by delegates in the original call that kickstarted the budget preference conversation. Clarity in the description and the scenarios of the vote as well as adding the budget visualisation as part of the voting process should help delegates make an informed decision. I view 6.5 as an iteration of 6.4 and it is a shame so much back and forth ensued around something that is in essence an improvement to 6.3 - which is what 6.4 was always intended to do: improve 6.3 without extensive delay for the SPP programme. (description updated since the date of the MG call was wrong)

Snapshot vote - about 1 year ago

[EP 6.4] [Social] Service Provider Season 2 Vote Amendment Proposal

For65.8K votes

It is important to acknowledge that 6.4 was the result of conversations around nuance and detail in the voting process that is a clear improvement iteration on 6.3 and it should be acknowledged as such. It is a result of collaborative intent to improve not just how budget is spent but also how decision making evolves. It is therefore the kickstarter to a more refined decision making process and I see 6.5 being another step from 6.4. This is not an adversarial dynamic, this is about evolving how we allocate resources in a more mindful, granular and effective way.