A. Delegation Address: 0xE93D59CC0bcECFD4ac204827eF67c5266079E2b5
B. Forum Username: 404Gov
C. Twitter Username: 404DAO 404Gov
E. Target Voting Participation: 100%
F. History of Interactions with NEAR Protocol: 404 has not interacted with the NEAR protocol in the past, but our team members have experimented with dApps on the NEAR protocol for trading and gaming.
G. History of Governance Participation (in NEAR or other ecosystems): 404 has been an active delegate across many ecosystems since January 2023. With contributions to Uniswap, Arbitrum, Optimism, ZKsync, Scroll, Wormhole, Morpho and Anvil. Specific contributions have been around incentive and grant programs, contributor onboarding, and DAO ops.
H. Top 3 Priorities for the NEAR Ecosystem:
-
Driving long-term growth and user retention through developer incentives, strategic marketing, and grant programs.
-
Doubling down on user-owned AI, an important item on NEAR’s roadmap, through grants/investments in developer tooling and distribution.
-
Fostering a thriving DAO ecosystem built on diligence, inclusivity, and transparency, where contributors actively participate and uphold the House of Stake values.
I. Reasoning for any past votes in the NEAR Ecosystem: N/A
J. Conflicts of Interest: We are an active delegate in the following ecosystems: Uniswap, Arbitrum, Optimism, ZKsync, Scroll, Wormhole, Morpho and Anvil
K. Answer Hypothetical Delegate Scenario: Prompt: The NEAR ecosystem is evaluating opportunities to stimulate onchain activity. In this hypothetical scenario, there are three different proposals for the Foundation to consider:
A proposal to allocate incentives to DeFi protocol users to benefit protocol metrics.
A proposal to establish a subcommittee to market the NEAR Protocol to developers and users.
A proposal to establish a Protocol-Owned Liquidity position by the House of Stake on major DeFi protocols in the ecosystem.
What additional information would you need from the proposers to make an informed decision?
We utilize a proposal review framework that systematically assesses each proposal through a series of questions, ranging from general to specific. This approach enables our team to effectively evaluate the overall strength, alignment, and potential success of each proposal.
Our general questions are as follows:
Team and Management
- Will this be a managed program? If so, will there be a program manager? Who is the team executing this proposal? What are their roles & responsibilities?
- Who is the proposing team? What are their qualifications? Do they have past experience running similar programs and have they been successful?**
- Will there be elections?
- What types of positions are available?
- What are the term lengths?
Objectives and Alignment
- What are the objectives of the proposal? (e.g. increase TVL, volume, bootstrap liquidity, enhance user retention, etc.)
- How do these objectives serve the NEAR DAO and its ecosystem?
- What does success look like?
- Are payouts tied to KPIs?
- Does this proposal align with the NEAR roadmap?
- Are the objectives measurable, relevant and actionable? How so?
Budget and Cost
- What is the total budget and timeframe for the proposal?
- Will this program introduce token emissions? If so, what could be the projected impact of these emissions on the token? Has the author addressed this potential impact? (particularly important for large proposals)
Governance Ops and DAO-Controls
- How does the proposal utilize NEAR governance mechanics?
- Did the team follow the standard governance process and framework?
- What controls does the DAO have? Are clawback terms defined in the proposal? What happens to unused budget?
- What reporting and accountability measures will be implemented for DAO transparency?
Proposal Specific Questions:
Incentives Proposal
- What is the selection criteria for protocols to receive incentives?
- What is the high level allocation strategy? E.g, pools to target, assets to incentivize
- How will rewards be distributed?
- How dynamic is the incentive allocation? I.e, will the types of assets incentivized change based on performance?
Marketing Initiative
- What marketing channels are in-scope for this proposal? E.g, Mirror/Paragraph/Substack articles, press releases and news publications, video content on Youtube
- Is there buy-in and alignment from a majority of stakeholders including the Foundation, relevant developer teams, delegates, etc
- Who is on the subcommittee and why is a subcommittee necessary? What will the subcommittee be tasked with? Is the subcommittee serving in a supervisory/oversight role or as an executor/operator?
- What other providers are involved with respect to the marketing lifecycle? (Acquisition, Attribution, etc.)
- What are the plans for marketing and distribution as it relates to the broader ecosystem? Are there any ecosystem partners involved?
POL Position
- Is this proposal part of a broader treasury management function or is it a one-off proposal?
- Will the POL position be actively managed? If so, how? How will performance be tracked and reported?
- Which protocols and pools are candidates for the POL positions?
- Have legal concerns/risks around the DAO taking a POL position been addressed?
- How will the POL positions be deployed? What onchain infrastructure will be used for the implementation?
- What are the target returns for the POL positions?
- What unintended effects may the POL positions have on users and liquidity providers?
What key metrics would you evaluate to support or reject the proposals? How would you ultimately support and vote for these different proposals?
We would utilize the following KPIs:
- Incentive Proposal
- Total protocols and pools incentivized
- DAUs, MAUs
- TVL, Volume, bridge flows, aggregate value of stablecoins on NEAR, interop activity
- TVL growth per $1 of incentives
- Wallet retention (1 day, 7 day, 30 day and 90 day)
- Fees generated
- Marketing Initiative
Projected number of developers onboarded as measured by:
- Github commits
- Engagements with Dev Rel
- New applications to developer grant programs
Projected number of new users onboarded as measured by: - Expected Revenue generated from new wallets created during campaign period (new wallet lifetime value or new user revenue)
- Application revenue (e.g, fees generated)
- Number of new users/wallets created during campaign period
- Social media growth & engagement (including total reach, PR/media coverage and conference presence)
- POL position
- ROI, net of fees
- Relative return on investment, benchmarked
- Impermanent Loss
Ultimately, we are likely to support proposals that have the following characteristics:
- Strong alignment with NEAR’s roadmap
- Clear need for the proposal
- Actionable objectives and measurable KPIs
- Budget that is in line with market prices
- Reputable team with a proven track record of execution and success
L. What is your motivation for becoming a NEAR delegate?
We believe NEAR has the potential to power the next generation of applications that seamlessly integrate blockchain and AI. As delegates, our diverse experience and well-rounded team position us to support NEAR’s roadmap implementation while fostering a decentralized ecosystem built on responsible spending, sustainable growth, and healthy collaboration.
M. Anticipated delegation support (if applicable) (Please describe the anticipated breakdown of delegated voting power, including any relevant self-delegation or large investors/core team members you wish to disclose).
No delegation support expected.
Self-Assessment Criteria(8/10)
A. Experience (2/2)
We participate across the governance landscape where we serve on councils and committees to further each DAO’s goals. We are delegates in the following DAOs:
- Arbitrum, where we were a member of LTIPP council and are currently leading the Onboarding Working Group.
- Optimism and serve on the Anti-Capture Commission.
- Large delegate in ZKSync, currently contributing to an incentive proposal
- Large delegate in Uniswap, selected into underrepresented delegates program
- Delegate in Scroll, member of Treasury Management Working Group
- Additionally a delegate in Wormhole, Morpho and Anvi
B. Diversity of Perspective (2/2)
404’s governance team has a variety of skillsets and expertise ranging from data analysis, security, audit and engineering to research, business marketing, and productr management. Our team is comprised of alumni and current students Georgia Tech as well as Web3 professionals in Atlanta.
As evidenced by our leadership in the Arbitrum Onboarding Working Group, we strive to expand governance participation and promote a more inclusive ecosystem that focuses on cross-chain interoperability and reducing fragmentation and silos across Ethereum-aligned protocols.
C. Alignment with NEAR Ecosystem (1/2)
We are aligned with NEAR’s values and objectives as outlined in the House of Stake Proposal and NEAR’s roadmap. We look to foster a healthy environment for delegates and stakeholders to address previous shortcomings that arose from the NDC.
D. Governance Engagement (2/2)
404 DAO has maintained an exceptional voting record over the last year and half, maintaining close to a 100% participation rate. While it is not always possible to engage with every proposal at a deep level, we strive to provide public rationale as often as possible. Our team has experience sitting on several councils & committees, including Arbitrum’s Long Term Incentive Pilot Program, Optimism’s Anti-Capture Committee, and Arbitrum’s newly created Multi-Sig Support Service. These positions have bolstered our experience in DAO growth initiatives and overall operational efficiency.
E. Conflicts of Interest (1/2)
Given that 404 operates across several DAOs, we are always mindful of potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, 404 employs a protocol-first approach that values what is best for the protocol and its respective DAO. We heavily believe in leaning on the Constitutional documents that set out the core values of each protocol and utilize our interpretations of this document for our decision-making on key votes.
Delegate Code of Conduct
We have read and agree to the NEAR Delegate Code of Conduct.