Dav - Delegate Proposal

Ecosystem Governance
, ,
1

Hi, here is my delegate proposal for House of Stake.
I’m OG on NEAR, into the community and validator since many years now.
I participated in NDC, and in NEARCON.

Delegate Questionnaire

A. Delegation Address: davletuner.near

B. Forum Username: @DDeAlmeida

C. Twitter Username: @DeAlmeidaDavid

D. Website (optional):

E. Target Voting Participation: 100% ( I will vote Abstain if case of Conflict of Interest)

F. History of Interactions with NEAR Protocol:

I joined the NEAR Protocol ecosystem in early 2021 through the Open Shards Alliance (OSA) with the mission of empowering validators to create and manage nodes effectively. During my journey, I received invaluable support and mentorship from @blaze, which helped me grow both within the NEAR ecosystem and the OSA. Over the years, I had the privilege of serving as Co-Lead of OSA, contributing to its mission and strengthening its impact on the network.

Beyond OSA, I have actively participated in various initiatives to support the NEAR Foundation and the broader community. This includes contributing to NEAR Docs, redaction of Validator Bootcamps, building and maintaining NEARUp, and playing a key role in managing the latest StakeWars—a vital testnet program designed to onboard new validators to NEAR. Currently, I continue to support NEAR as a Validator Relations advocate, assisting validators by answering questions and resolving issues to ensure the ecosystem’s resilience and growth.

I also had the honor of participating in the NDC as a member of the House of Merit, where I worked to ensure that proposals aligned with NEAR’s mission and long-term goals.

Over time, I’ve built strong relationships with various teams and projects in the NEAR ecosystem. I was a beta tester for Metapool and have collaborated with other notable projects such as Meteor Wallet, Tinker Union, Cartel Caffe, PikeSpeak, and Moonshot.

Currently, I am part of the MyNearWallet Support team, where I focus on delivering support to users and helping them navigate the NEAR ecosystem seamlessly.

This journey has been driven by my passion for fostering collaboration, strengthening validator infrastructure, and supporting the NEAR ecosystem’s growth. I remain committed to contributing to its success and building a thriving, inclusive community.

G. History of Governance Participation (in NEAR or other ecosystems):

In the Open Shards Alliance (OSA), I had the privilege of managing the DAO alongside Blaze, where we worked together to foster a collaborative and supportive environment for validators. This experience allowed me to gain invaluable insights into community governance and the intricate workings of decentralized organizations.

As a member of the House of Merit, I actively engaged in proposal reviews, voting processes, and interviews, contributing my expertise to ensure that the decisions made aligned with NEAR’s long-term vision and best interests. I participated in discussions and calls, collaborating with others to assess the viability and potential impact of proposals on the ecosystem.

For transparency and accountability, you can find a public record of my activities and contributions, which can be found in my tracking report here: Congress Members Transparency Activity Tracking List and Reports. This reflects my commitment to openness and my dedication to the ongoing success and integrity of the NEAR ecosystem.

H. Top 3 Priorities for the NEAR Ecosystem:

-Strengthen Ecosystem Fundamentals
Ensure the core infrastructure of the NEAR ecosystem remains robust and functional. This includes vital structures like DAOs, explorers, and wallets. It is essential that users can seamlessly engage with the DAO and vote without barriers.

-Empower and Retain Builders
Supporting the developer community is key. Re-establish grants with clear limitations, ensuring proper follow-up to track progress and detect potential deviations. Collaboration with DevHub could prove valuable, especially on the technical side, providing more resources and guidance to builders. Fostering an environment where creators can thrive is crucial for long-term growth.

-Enhance Marketing and Visibility
The visibility of NEAR is currently one of its major challenges. We need a concerted effort in public relations to push out impactful news, host engaging events, and create a compelling narrative around the ecosystem. At the same time, it’s critical to stop the inefficient use of resources on BOT-driven competitions.

I. Reasoning for any past votes in the NEAR Ecosystem:

During my time as a member of the House of Merit, I approached each vote as an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the growth and integrity of the NEAR ecosystem. My voting philosophy was guided by a commitment to supporting proposals that demonstrated clear potential to deliver tangible value to the ecosystem, whether through innovation, adoption, or long-term sustainability.

When reviewing proposals, I placed a strong emphasis on due diligence, ensuring that the projects I supported had a solid foundation, a credible team, and a well-articulated plan for success. I was particularly cautious to avoid endorsing initiatives that posed a risk of being exit scams or failing to deliver on their promises. This careful scrutiny ensured that funds and resources were directed toward endeavors that genuinely aligned with NEAR’s mission and vision.

Above all, I took full ownership of my decisions. I carefully analyzed each proposal and made my own independent vote, prioritizing the best interests of the ecosystem over external pressures or influences. This experience reinforced my commitment to fostering a thriving, trustworthy, and forward-looking NEAR ecosystem, values that continue to guide my contributions today.

J. Conflicts of Interest:
I will abstain from voting in any situation involving a potential conflict of interest, just as I have consistently done during my time in the House of Merit.

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:

  1. A proposal to allocate incentives to DeFi protocol users to benefit protocol metrics.
  2. A proposal to establish a subcommittee to market the NEAR Protocol to developers and users.
  3. 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?
  • What key metrics would you evaluate to support or reject the proposals?
  • How would you ultimately support and vote for these different proposals?

Answers:
1.
To make an informed decision about allocating incentives to DeFi protocol users, additional information is needed on the specific goals and expected outcomes of the proposal. For instance, it is essential to understand which metrics the incentives aim to improve, such as Total Value Locked (TVL), user retention, or transaction volume. Details about the proposed budget, duration, and distribution methods (e.g., proportional to trading volume or for new user onboarding) are critical for evaluating the proposal’s feasibility and sustainability. Furthermore, understanding the risks involved, such as the potential for attracting “mercenary capital” (users who leave once incentives expire), is necessary to assess whether the incentives will lead to long-term benefits for the NEAR ecosystem. Key metrics to evaluate this proposal include the cost per user acquisition, retention rates, and the impact on on-chain activity. The proposal would be supported if it demonstrates a sustainable plan with measurable ROI and avoids risks of short-term user churn.

For the marketing subcommittee proposal, the key to an informed decision lies in the scope and clarity of its objectives. The subcommittee should outline specific strategies, such as hosting developer hackathons, launching targeted campaigns, or providing developer grants. A detailed budget is necessary to understand how resources will be allocated (e.g., staffing, media campaigns). It is also important to establish clear success criteria, such as the number of developers onboarded, the growth in active projects, or user engagement metrics like website visits and wallet activations. Evaluating cost-effectiveness, such as cost per developer or user acquisition, will help measure the potential ROI. The proposal would be supported if it provides a well-defined plan with measurable goals and an efficient use of funds to increase the visibility and adoption of the NEAR Protocol.

The proposal to establish Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL) by the House of Stake requires detailed information on the deployment plan, including the amount of capital needed, the specific assets involved, and the protocols targeted for liquidity provision. The proposers must justify why the chosen protocols are strategically important and how POL will support ecosystem growth. Expected returns on investment (ROI) and risk mitigation strategies, such as managing impermanent loss or market volatility, must also be addressed. Key metrics to evaluate this proposal include ROI on deployed liquidity, growth in trading volume, and the stability of liquidity pools. The proposal would be supported if it demonstrates a strong potential for financial returns, effectively strengthens NEAR’s DeFi infrastructure, and includes robust plans to mitigate risks.

L. What is your motivation for becoming a NEAR delegate?

I have been actively involved in the NEAR ecosystem since 2020-2021, and my commitment to its growth and success has only deepened over time. My motivation for becoming a NEAR delegate is driven by a strong desire to bring high value to the ecosystem and help shape its future.

Throughout my journey, I have actively contributed to various initiatives, including my participation in the NEAR Decentralized Community (NDC), where I worked to support governance decisions. Now, I am eager to bring that same dedication and vision to the House of Stake.

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).

I do not have any formal agreements or arrangements regarding delegation support.

5. Self-Assessment Criteria

A. Experience (2/2)

As an experienced validator, I have a deep understanding of how the NEAR blockchain operates and the intricacies of its underlying infrastructure. My involvement in the ecosystem has allowed me to gain firsthand knowledge of validator dynamics, consensus mechanisms, and network security.

Additionally, I have been actively engaged in the NEAR DAO and governance processes, contributing to the decision-making and proposal review cycles.

B. Diversity of Perspective (1/2)

I voted “1” because, at this moment, the participation is limited, and I feel that other community members may share similar views.

Notes:

C. Alignment with NEAR Ecosystem (2/2)

I am an active and dedicated member of the NEAR validator community, having contributed significantly to the ecosystem’s growth and development. Over the course of my involvement, I have taken on various roles and initiatives, striving to strengthen the network and support its long-term success. I remain committed to the NEAR ecosystem and will continue to contribute to its advancement.

In addition to my work with validators, I am also actively involved with MyNearWallet, where I focus on enhancing user experiences and supporting the broader NEAR community.

D. Governance Engagement (2/2)

All of my activities and contributions are fully transparent and available on-chain. For a detailed overview of my participation in the House of Merit, including my involvement in proposal reviews, voting, interviews, and calls, you can refer to the transparency report.

E. Conflicts of Interest (2/2)

I have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest with the House of Stake

8 Likes
2

If not the best, probably one of the best candidates representing the values and interest of the community.

Not much to say, the reputation of Dav is one of the highest on the NEAR Ecosyste,.

2 Likes
3

Hi Dav,

Congrats on the nomination. As a former NDC House of Merit representative:

  1. Did you ever express any concerns around the original design of the NDC and the potential flaws (that ultimately lead to its downfall).
  2. Did you provide reasoning for your voting decisions as part of NDC?
  3. What are some lessons you personally learnt from the NDC era? (How can we ensure that we will not repeat similar mistakes by electing same people as before)

I note that you have linked a thread with Transparency Reports. This is an example of something I objected to - having one long thread for every member and evert month makes it very hard to follow and search. It seemed like a deliberate attempt to obfuscate people’s participation and broke away from the convention and best practice of one post per member per month, clearly identified in the title.

2 Likes
4

Hi !

Thank you for your message.

  1. Yes, I did share some concerns regarding the initial structure and potential risks, particularly around issues such as the centralization of responsibilities and the lack of robust mechanisms to prevent abuse. That said, as with any innovative project, certain flaws only became fully visible as the system was implemented.
    Working with humans is inherently complex because we all have different perspectives and opinions, but it’s precisely this diversity that becomes our greatest strength.

  2. Yes, I provided reasoning for every voting decision. These explanations were documented in the comments on Astra++. Additionally, I often engaged in calls or chats with other representatives to discuss proposals, share my perspective, and express any doubts. I also posted questions directly on proposals in the governance forum on the NEAR website to encourage clarity and dialogue.

  3. One key takeaway is that the foundation and tools must be thoroughly prepared before launching such an initiative. Proper onboarding, robust infrastructure, and consistent community engagement are essential to success. We must also ensure accountability and transparency at every level to rebuild trust and avoid past mistakes.

I understand your concerns regarding the format of the transparency reports. From my perspective, the thread-based approach allowed for quick searches using the name of the representative. However, I acknowledge that a standardized system with individual monthly posts, clearly titled, would have been more user-friendly and aligned with best practices. This is a valuable suggestion for improving future processes.

1 Like