A. Delegation Address:
blaze.near
B. Forum Username:
blaze
C. Twitter Username:
Blaze0x1
D. Website (optional):
(Not provided)
E. Target Voting Participation:
100%
F. History of Interactions with NEAR Protocol:
- Founder of NEAR NDC
G. History of Governance Participation (in NEAR or other ecosystems):
- NEAR NDC
- Stake Wars
H. Top 3 Priorities for the NEAR Ecosystem:
- Eliminate nepotism
- Encourage fair competition
- Revive the community
I. Reasoning for any past votes in the NEAR Ecosystem:
- Active participation in NDC governance
J. Conflicts of Interest:
- Unfortunately, Blaze is not currently part of the NEAR ecosystem.
K. Answer to Hypothetical Delegate Scenario:
1. Proposal 1: Incentives for DeFi Protocol Users
- Budget Allocation: What is the requested funding amount, and how will it be distributed?
- Target Users & Mechanism: Who are the intended recipients (liquidity providers, traders, borrowers, etc.)? How will incentives be distributed fairly?
- Expected Outcomes: Which key metrics will improve (TVL, trading volume, active addresses)?
- Sustainability: How will the incentives transition from subsidized activity to organic growth?
- Risk Mitigation: What measures will be in place to prevent Sybil attacks and mercenary capital?
2. Proposal 2: NEAR Marketing Subcommittee
- Goals & Strategy: What are the specific goals (developer onboarding, ecosystem awareness, partnerships)?
- Execution Plan: How will marketing be executed (events, grants, hackathons, influencer collaborations)?
- Budget Breakdown: What is the requested funding, and how will it be allocated (content creation, advertising, sponsorships)?
- Expected ROI: What KPIs will be tracked (developer sign-ups, smart contract deployments, active user growth)?
3. Proposal 3: Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL) by House of Stake
- Liquidity Strategy: How much capital will be allocated, and to which DeFi protocols?
- Expected Yield: What are the projected returns from LP fees, staking rewards, or governance power?
- Risk Management: How will impermanent loss, smart contract risks, and market fluctuations be managed?
- Governance Control: How will NEAR benefit from owning liquidity instead of relying on transient LPs?
Key Metrics to Evaluate the Proposals
General Ecosystem Growth Metrics
- Daily Active Users (DAU) on NEAR
- New developer sign-ups and deployed smart contracts
- Total transactions per day
For Proposal 1: DeFi Incentives
- TVL Growth: Increase in total value locked in incentivized protocols
- Transaction Volume: Increase in swaps, lending/borrowing transactions
- User Retention: Percentage of users remaining active after incentives end
- Capital Efficiency: Ratio of incentives paid vs. additional value generated
For Proposal 2: Marketing Subcommittee
- Developer Growth: Increase in active developers & projects built on NEAR
- User Growth: Growth in wallets, active dApps, and community engagement
- Cost-Effectiveness: ROI on marketing spend (e.g., cost per developer onboarded)
For Proposal 3: Protocol-Owned Liquidity
- Capital Efficiency: Revenue from POL (fees, rewards) vs. capital invested
- Liquidity Depth: Impact on slippage and trading volume in NEAR-based DEXs
- Sustainability: Reduction in reliance on mercenary liquidity
- Governance Influence: NEAR’s voting power and strategic positioning in DeFi protocols
Voting Strategy
1. Proposal 1 (DeFi Incentives)
Support if incentives drive long-term organic activity rather than just short-term rewards.
Require clear monitoring and anti-Sybil measures to prevent abuse.
Prefer performance-based funding rather than upfront allocation.
2. Proposal 2 (Marketing Subcommittee)
Support if there is a structured, results-driven plan with measurable KPIs.
Require regular reporting and performance-based funding milestones.
Oppose if the plan lacks transparency or measurable impact.
3. Proposal 3 (Protocol-Owned Liquidity)
Support if the allocation is well-planned with sustainable yield opportunities.
Prioritize low-risk liquidity strategies to prevent capital loss from impermanent loss.
Prefer POL focused on ecosystem-native assets rather than volatile pairs.
L. Motivation for Becoming a NEAR Delegate
- Empower the community, not VCs.
5. Self-Assessment Criteria
Score: 10/10
(Each category includes two sentences of justification.)
A. Experience (2/2)
Extensive governance experience through NEAR NDC.
Deep understanding of blockchain, governance, and protocol operations.
B. Diversity of Perspective (2/2)
Brings a strong independent perspective, advocating against nepotism.
Aims to challenge the current power structure and promote inclusivity.
C. Alignment with NEAR Ecosystem (2/2)
Previously a key contributor to NEAR NDC and governance discussions.
Deeply invested in revitalizing the ecosystem and bringing transparency.
D. Governance Engagement (2/2)
Actively participated in NDC governance, forums, and governance discussions.
Advocated for structural changes to improve governance efficiency.
E. Conflicts of Interest (2/2)
No direct or indirect conflicts of interest with the House of Stake.
Operates independently from centralized power structures in NEAR governance.
6. Delegate Code of Conduct
Will adhere to the NEAR governance framework and follow best practices.
Why Blaze Should Be a Delegate
Promote competition instead of granting funds to friends.
Eliminate wasteful funding of negative ROI projects, which fails to attract developers.
Empower the community—NEAR is the only major protocol that doesn’t engage with its grassroots supporters.
Redirect funding to ecosystem builders and influencers—NearWeek is bureaucratic and censors content.
Remove inactive members from the NEAR board and introduce weekly transparency reports.
Hold NEAR’s leadership accountable and demand transparency.
Dismantle nepotistic structures like the Infra Committee/ Events and prioritize hiring the best professionals.
In Blaze we trust! Blaze is a unique talent who empowered the community despite constant pressure from VCs and the foundation. Blaze should also be a part of the NEAR Board.
