These are great questions @coffee-crusher, really appreciate it! 
Before I dive in, a quick note: it’s clear NEAR is undergoing some strategic shifts. At this point, I don’t yet have a full picture, only community conversations, not first-hand information. So rather than speculate, I’ll answer based on governance principles I believe hold true regardless of strategic shifts.
Q1 – What’s the #1 priority in the first 30 days?
Clarity.
Do voters understand what success looks like for NEAR?
Illia said it well in this recent conversation (min. 42:08):
”One (thing) is there’s alignment on a mission, let’s call it North Star as a way to measure how much progress we made on our mission. (…) After that, effectively the only question is if some action gets you closer to that North Star or not, and out of all the possible actions you can take and the capacity you can take at any moment, is this the best action?”
So in the first 30 days, I’d aim to operationalize a shared North Star.
I’ll ask:
- Do voters have the context, data, and information they need to act in NEAR’s best interest — today, in 3 months, 6 months, 12 months?
- Are stakeholder voices represented in a way that’s clear, proportional, and trustworthy?
- How can the DAO build and support a trusted community of capable decision-makers — and how can contributors trust the system in return?
- And finally: How can we measure whether our decisions are working — and improve based on evidence?
Only after that a foundation is in place do things like committee design, process flow, or veNEAR economics become meaningful. Otherwise, we’re just throwing tools at a coordination failure.
Q2 – How to avoid quiet re-centralization?
First, we have to understand why DAOs are re-centralizing. A key insight comes directly from the Arbitrum forum: “Too many operational decisions are tasked to people and organizations that do not have Arbitrum winning as their number one priority. ”
Decentralization without aligned incentives is wishful thinking.
In most DAOs today, voters are:
- Not held accountable for negative outcomes
- Not rewarded for positive outcomes
- Often incentivized to vote in their own short-term interest, even with good intentions, not necessarily in the best interest of the protocol
So if we know the incentives are broken, how can we expect DAOs to produce better outcomes?
If chosen for this role, I’d love to work with the whole NEAR community to address this:
- How can we build positive-sum incentive systems into governance?
- How do we make alignment observable and actionable?
- And how do we protect against misaligned influence while keeping participation open?
Q3 – Can I deliver with vendors like Gauntlet and Agora? Yes.
I’ve led operational teams for over a decade. As Founder & CEO of TE Academy (2020–2024), I was responsible, and personally liable, for everything from product to payroll.
We built our Web2/Web3 infrastructure, delivered across time zones, launched live programs under pressure, and managed grants and sponsorships from some of the biggest names in the space: Optimism, ENS, Gnosis, 1kx, Consensys, and more. We shipped with small teams, aggressive deadlines, and no excuses.
So yes — I love the research side of governance. But I’ve also done the work of shipping real infrastructure in the messiness of real ecosystems.
There’s no substitute for real ownership. I’ve had it, and I’m ready to take it again.
Thanks again — I’m really glad to be part of this conversation and would love to go deeper on any of these points!