A. Delegation Address: alejandro.near
B. Forum Username: satojandro
C. Twitter Username: x.com
D. Website (optional): Alejandro V. Betancourt
E. Target Voting Participation: 100%
F. History of Interactions with NEAR Protocol:
I’ve been an active contributor to the NEAR ecosystem since late 2021. From reading and excited by NEAR’s vision and technical docs, to posting banger twitter threads communicating that excitement to the world, which got me noticed and started bringing me opportunities.
- Been a member of REF Finance Community Board since 2022
- Advisor and early employee at Meta Pool
- Content creator (Youtube Channel)
- Podcast (Wuipod) that has documented the history of NEAR and elevated founders
- Marketing DAO (see below)
- NDC (see below)
Additionally I’ve attended A LOT of conferences in personal capacity, always representing NEAR and making intros, etc. I have scars from defending NEAR’s many pivots.
G. History of Governance Participation (in NEAR or other ecosystems):
- Marketing DAO: early member, joined when it was still majority controlled by NF employees. Was there during the transition to community. I rewrote the Marketing DAO guidelines following the pause of all Grassroots DAOs during Marieke Era (Creatives DAO remained on Pause until the relaunch of NDC). These guidelines were known (and hated) for upholding high standards of quality for content that actually related to NEAR (ending a cycle of complacency and outright governance abuses).
- Strong opposition to Creatives DAO - ever since we started noting the double dipping of low quality projects that were being rejected from MDAO but approved by CDAO y became very vocal about it. Obvious scams and grifting aside, I was very vocal about Creatives DAO being unaligned with NEAR Protocol. It was completely unacceptable that there was an ‘untouchable’ Creatives DAO but no ‘Buidlers DAO’ supporting founders.
- I’ve been an early and active contributor to Meta Pool governance, allocating extra delegation to community run, top performing validators and voting for community proposals as Meta Pool has stepped in to fill the hole left by NDC.
- NDC Transparency Commission
H. Top 3 Priorities for the NEAR Ecosystem:
- Ecosystem Development/Alignment: There was a much needed reset after NDC. Now we desperately need to reactivate the NEAR Ecosystem, which to be honest, is currently dead. We need pathways and resources for all Ecosystem members (anyone wanting to join) to be up to speed with Intents, CA, AI, etc. Everyone should be able to explain it to anyone in their city, start building and tinkering today.
- Ecosystem Growth - everything seems to be managed top down today. Top operators, but there is only so much a handful at the top can do. We need more hacker houses, more local meetups, more support for local teams, etc.
- Make NEAR a Blockchain Again. Make the separation between NEAR Foundation with a mandate to grow NEAR Blockchain and a for-profit NEAR AI org public and real as soon as possible. Give people a choice - contribute towards NEAR as a blockchain (native app development, etc.) or towards NEAR AI. At the moment seems like the blockchain community is a second class citizen to the AI.
In general - there is a strong feeling that NEAR abstracted everything, including the community, and that there is only room for AI (including AI builders). If we want to grow, we still need humans to care and contribute.
I. Reasoning for any past votes in the NEAR Ecosystem:
- I have seen corruption in every form imaginable and I am intimately familiar to how the grifting and abuse ends (growing up in Venezuela).
- I am also an Australian Lawyer (Common Law) and lived in Australia for 15 years. Despite what some may think after Covid, from Australia I learned about fairness, and saw the fruits of a strong work ethic and commitment to excellence.
- I’ve been around web3 since 2016 - I’ve been the narratives, the hype, the bleeding bears and the raging bulls. The founders and the fraudsters. I have developed a sense for what works long term and have a SOLID track record of ringing the alarm on things way before it ultimately collapses.
- Marketing DAO - I am proud to have over 600 public rationales for every Marketing DAO proposal I assessed. These are all available on the forum for anyone to peruse. Not only did I spend more time than necessary documenting my reasoning well, but I also made it a requirement for other MDAO members to also share their explicit reasoning as part of the MDAO Charter on their transition to NDC. Disagreements over these level of transparency, and their willingness to step down while demanding more money with minimal work is what led me to step down.
- Transparency Commission - The NDC was doomed to fail before it even started. I was extremely vocal about this before it went live. Illia summarized mine, and others concerns too a couple of weeks before election on the Telegram channel. Despite these insurmountable flaws, I tried to implement a Common Law golden standard for accountability. Sadly, I was met with resistence at every turn: from rejection to implement a Conflict of Interest framework to outright refusal to implement Third Party Review (despite being told by NF and other stakeholders that it was needed). TC was compromised from the inside, so I started advocating for the immediate death of the NDC, including my resignation.
The Cartel was real. The parasites that feed off the old structured appear to have disappeared but are always one grant scheme they can abuse away. I am here to ensure we have learned the lessons and prevent the failings of the past from occurring again.
6.
J. Conflicts of Interest:
- Advisor and early employee Meta Pool
- Angel Investor Jutsu
- I’ve had, or I’m likely to have, Grant Recipients (founders, builders, et al.) on my podcast
- Former MDAO, TC-NDC
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.
What additional information would you need from the proposers to make an informed decision?
- Team History - are they a grassroots team dedicated to NEAR, an established team from other ecosystem expanding to NEAR, or an average team chasing or grants in every ecosystem.
- If the team is dedicated to NEAR; I would like more information on the technological innovation. What unique approach are they taking? How can they create value for users?
- If the team is established from other ecosystems, I’d look at their metrics elsewhere. How much mindshare and attention can they bring us. Is their weight elsewhere enough to bring their existing users with them?
- Liquidity - what is the team’s strategy for bootstrapping liquidity? If there will be any insiders providing liquidity benefitting from incentives program (most incentives on NEAR have been a gross transfer of value from one entity to the same people providing liquidity on the monopoly they run).
- Plans for the team to contribute towards ecosystem growth? This may include X Spaces, holding workshops in their local city, open sourcing code/creating educational material, etc.
- Do they have plans to integrate into NEAR Intents, Chain Abstraction, AI
What key metrics would you evaluate to support or reject the proposals?
- Strong Branding, top-tier User-experience, compelling value prop. We spend too many resources supporting teams with horrible UX and unclear value props that are destined to fail the minute support is cut-off
- Number of Daily Active Users
- TVL
Reasoning for Voting
- I would look past the specifics of the proposal at hand and spend time understanding how other ecosystems like Sui have managed their incentives.
- I would strongly favor incentives to increase competition on NEAR. The current monopoly from the same team is unacceptable.
- I would also like to see ways of complementing incentives: looping across protocols, etc.
- If the product is good and team competent, I would support a proposal for a limited amount of time to give everyone an opportunity to continue iterating and growing.
A proposal to establish a subcommittee to market the NEAR Protocol to developers and users.
What additional information would you need from the proposers to make an informed decision?
- Who would be part of the subcommittee?
- Duration of the program
- The narrative(s) that will be targeted: are they aligned with NEAR, are there clear and actionable calls to action, etc.
- Budget?
- A clear profile of the type of developers they want to target, what impact they can have on NEAR, etc.
What key metrics would you evaluate to support or reject the proposals?
- A robust understanding of NEAR dev landscape
- Clear plans to reach the desired audience
- Targets for dev onboarding etc.
Reasoning for Voting
- I would likely support the proposal if it creates a cohesive narrative that brings together all the currently seemingly disparate pieces of the NEAR Stack.
- As part of the proposal, I would also like to see young talent targeted: university students, hackathons, etc. on top of the current NEAR target of 35yr old founder
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?
- Case studies of Protocol-owned liquidity positions from other protocols that they consider successful
- The stated aim of the position: is it to support projects on NEAR by supplying protocol assets, creating a sustainable treasury for NEAR, or both?
- The risks of deploying capital on other protocols (market risk, smart contract risk, et al.)
What key metrics would you evaluate to support or reject the proposals?
- Level of acceptable risk
- Net benefit for the ecosystem projects receiving delegation
- Effect of this position on retail users (i.e. avoid creating negative incentives by having one player have a disproportionate effect on the market).
- Long term impact on HoS Treasury
Reasoning for Voting
- I would most likely support a well crafted proposal if it carries low levels of risk as Defi on NEAR really needs some support.
L. What is your motivation for becoming a NEAR delegate?
I believe NEAR has A LOT of unrealized potential. One of the reasons why NEAR is not realizing this potential is due to the mismanagement of the past (NF, related entities) and the (predictable, avoidable) governance failures of the past. I am motivated to join as a delegate as I believe the current model may actually provide a functional framework to unlock decentralized governance and ecosystem growth.
I am also motivated to join to be at the core of decentralized governance, understand every process, need, and stakeholder, and I keep working on solutions towards AI governance. My ultimate goal is to replace myself with an AI Delegate.
M. Anticipated delegation support (if applicable): unknown. Grassroots, with no big personal holdings (< 10,000 NEAR) or backed by large holders.
5. Self-Assessment Criteria
Score (X/10) - please include two sentences of notes minimum per category
A. Experience (2/2)
Experience may be smart contract development, DAO governance, protocol growth, community development, DeFi market operations, or other relevant backgrounds for the House of Stake.
Rating: 2/2
- 2 - Strong and relevant professional experience within the blockchain industry.
- 1 - Light experience in any of the above categories.
- 0 - No relevant experience.
Notes:
B. Diversity of Perspective (X/2)
Rating: 2/2
- 2 - The Delegate brings a unique perspective to the House of Stake compared to other delegates.
- 1 - The Delegate brings an underrepresented perspective to the House of Stake.
- 0 - The Delegate brings a common perspective to the House of Stake.
Notes: While I am increasingly going into Builder mode thanks to AI tooling, I have always brought a rare set of perspectives to NEAR: User Experience, focus on Product, Grassroots Community, tapped into a lot of ecosystems + attending conferences and hackathon talking to builders year-round, learning from constantly having deep and insightful conversations
C. Alignment with NEAR Ecosystem (X/2)
Rating: 2/2
- 2 - The delegate is an active builder in the NEAR ecosystem with strong alignment. They will benefit enormously if NEAR grows.
- 1 - The delegate has some commitment to the NEAR ecosystem
- 0 - The delegate has no alignment with the NEAR ecosystem.
Notes: Up until 2025 I have been a NEAR exclusive contributor. I am working towards expansing my horizon this year, which still aligns with AI + Chain Abstraction themes.
D. Governance Engagement (X/2)
Rating: 2/2
- 2 - The delegate has a strong track record of participating in the governance of NEAR or other ecosystems. The delegate was an active voter, vocal in the forums, and helped drive initiatives.
- 1—The delegate has participated in governance in NEAR or other ecosystems. This may have included voting, posting in the forums, or contributing to initiatives unpaid.
- 0 - The delegate has no track record of participation in onchain governance.
Notes: Keeping the Bastards Honest Since 2022
E. Conflicts of Interest (X/2)
Rating: 1/2
- 2 - The delegate has no direct or indirect conflicts of interest with the House of Stake.
- 1 - The delegate has an indirect conflict of interest with the House of Stake.
- 0 - The delegate has a direct conflict of interest with the House of Stake.
Notes: Vested interest in Meta Pool