LifeofDan-EL Delegate Thread

Delegates
1

Hello everyone, I’m LifeofDan-EL (Daniel Anomfueme), a Technical Project Manager and Community Builder with a Computer Science background. Over the past five years, I’ve specialized in bridging technology and community development across diverse sectors.

I have been a contributor at VitaDAO for 3 years now in the Coordination Working Group, where I work across Governance, Tokenomics, and Tech-Product squads to advance decentralized science initiatives. As the founder of DeSci Africa, I’m leading efforts to introduce and expand decentralized science across the African continent.

My experience spans project management, community development, and technical implementation. Being selected as a Devconnect Scholar in 2023 has further deepened my understanding of Web3 ecosystems and their practical applications.

Through these roles, I’ve developed expertise in:

  • Building and nurturing both technical and non-technical communities
  • Managing complex technological solutions across various industries
  • Implementing decentralized governance strategies
  • Fostering innovation in emerging markets

A message to the community and ecosystem: As an active participant in VitaDAO governance and a keen observer of multiple Web3 protocols, I bring both hands-on governance experience and broad ecosystem awareness to the role of Scroll delegate. My involvement with VitaDAO has given me practical insight into decentralized governance, while my consistent monitoring of other protocols helps me identify effective strategies and potential pitfalls in the space.

My background in Decentralized Science, combined with my ongoing analysis of various protocols’ developments, positions me to spot valuable opportunities for Scroll’s ecosystem. I maintain active oversight of multiple protocol initiatives, which helps me understand what drives real-world value versus what looks promising only on paper. Specifically, I plan to:

  • Apply lessons learned from VitaDAO’s governance model
  • Leverage my understanding of cross-protocol developments to inform decision-making
  • Focus on practical, value-driven proposals that align with Scroll’s vision
  • Identify opportunities where DeSci initiatives could enhance Scroll’s ecosystem

I believe my combination of direct governance experience and broad protocol knowledge will help guide Scroll’s growth in a sustainable and innovative direction.

Interests: DAOs, Governance, Gaming, DeFi

Link to Delegate profile: 0x76...A876 on Agora

Top Issues

  • On builders, I believe builders should be supported and given the right incentives to make them build long term.
  • On community, I believe the voice of the community is very important and everyone should have a voice and be heard.
  • On decentralization. I believe decentralization is key, that is the ethos of web3 and why we are here. We should seek to apply the principle in what we do.
  • On governance, I believe governance still has a lot of rough patches to be made, however, there should be care for the community and also a willingness to learn.

Conflict of interest

As transparency is key for governance, if there is any conflict of interest with a proposal, I would mention that and abstain from it, if it’s the best decision to be made.

I plan to use this thread to share my rationale behind votes and also get feedback from the community. Thanks for delegating to me, and feel free to ask questions.

You can always reach out to me on Twitter and on Telegram.

9 Likes
2

Rationale for the first proposal from the DAO.

It has been a interesting experience, working and listening with other people who have been past of the Cocreation cycle and seeing this proposal by Daniel and the RnDAO team live.

I am voting FOR, for this proposal because I strongly believe it is important to work with data, if we are to make good decisions for the DAO. Getting to have more context about what works best in other ecosystems and why people lean towards them, would be quite important to Scroll’s growth. The information from this research will be helpful to a lot of considerations the DAO will make.

3

Rationale for Scroll DAO Constitution vote

I am voting FOR, for this proposal. The constitution captures that the DAO is being structured in a way, that we move towards full decentralisation over time, ensuring a gradual and stable transition.

The Security Council is required to publicly report emergency actions, adding a layer of accountability. Clear delineation between Scroll Foundation, Governance Facilitators, Security Council, and SCR holders ensures checks and balances.

I do have worries that the Scroll Foundation’s influence at this early stage would mean that full decentralization is still a long-term goal.

Overall, this governance framework is a strong foundation for ScrollDAO’s progressive decentralization, but ongoing adjustments will be necessary to ensure that power is effectively distributed among the community over time.

4

Rationale for Euclid Upgrade on Scroll Vote

I am voting FOR, for this proposal. The Euclid Upgrade proposal represents a comprehensive approach to overcoming current performance and security limitations while paving the way for new features and enhanced user experiences. The two-phased rollout, combined with robust security measures and detailed operational plans, makes it a strategically sound initiative for maintaining and advancing Scroll’s competitive edge in the evolving Web3 landscape.

5

Rationale for ScrollDAO Delegate Accelerator Proposal

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

In its current state, Scroll DAO is still in the early innings of its governance evolution. A robust, decentralized system can’t thrive on passive voting and surface-level engagement, it requires intentional cultivation of capable, diverse, and well-informed delegates. This Delegate Accelerator (D/Acc) proposal addresses that need directly.

I support the clear structure, competency-based curriculum, and the balance between theory, practical application, and incentives. The combination of assessments, live sessions, and hands-on governance work shows an understanding of what it takes to build legitimacy and resilience into DAO participation.

I’m especially aligned with the longer-term implications: increasing active votable supply, distributing governance knowledge, and avoiding over-consolidation of power. Delegates aren’t just voters, they’re contributors to the DAO’s trajectory. If we want Scroll DAO to be sustainable and inclusive over time, this kind of infrastructure investment is necessary.

Looking forward to seeing how this pilot performs and how the learnings will shape future iterations.

1 Like
6

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

Generally, the idea of a bit of incentive for delegates is a welcome initiative. I’ve followed through the iterations of this proposal, and I do say it has had a good number of valuable feedback from delegates, through the forum posts and governance calls.

The idea of the working group fleshing out what the next proposal should look like also sounds great. I think the ones who will be working on that, should do well to keep the community in the loop, which I believe would be the case.

Also my negation game rationale: here

2 Likes
7

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

The goal here isn’t to artificially flatten existing delegate power, but to ensure quorum resilience and broader engagement. Keeping it straightforward will also make the program easier to execute and track transparently.

If this passes, the program must have a public post-mortem in October with clear data to justify the conclusion or extension.

1 Like
8

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

It looks well thought out and also detailed. Generally, the idea of Local Nodes is something I support, especially in regions with an active web3 curious base. I do hope a Scroll pipeline is created through this.

9

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

We’ve seen how hard it is to turn good ideas into executable programs. This council can bridge that gap and give us a better shot at actually deploying resources to the builders and contributors who are aligned with Scroll’s mission.

I also appreciate that success isn’t being measured purely by spend or hype, but by whether the council actually gets off the ground, runs transparently, and delivers at least one credible growth initiative.

Let’s use this as a pilot, stay close to the process, and build on the learnings. The groundwork laid here can become a template for how Scroll approaches ecosystem support going forward.

10

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

I support this because it’s a targeted, low-cost experiment that leverages a culturally relevant, grassroots approach to builder onboarding. Mexico has a distributed, under-tapped pool of builders, and the Urbanika bus turns access and visibility into motion. I want follow-through infrastructure to be top of mind in future extensions. No point recruiting if we can’t retain.

1 Like
11

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

I support this because it’s not starting from zero. Web3Clubs has clear infrastructure, boots on the ground, and an existing community of builders across East Africa. Also, at $30k, the ask is extremely reasonable for the scope. They’ve mapped every dollar to a specific activity, team member, or tool.

However, while I appreciate the ambition around TradFi and regulatory engagement, some of those outcomes feel ambitious for a 3-month pilot.

Overall, the team is credible, the cost is justifiable, and Kenya is too strategic a region to sleep on. If we’re serious about Scroll’s long-term reach in emerging markets, programs like this are how we build the foundations

1 Like
12

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

I do think audits are a good incentive to attract long-term builders and also a way to make sure funds are safe with projects building on Scroll. This tackles a real bottleneck as most teams treat an audit like a finish line, but the risk actually spikes after launch.

I also like that subsidies are structured as investments, not one-off grants. If a team scales, the DAO captures a sliver of upside, which is a good aligned incentive. The rating rubric + eligibility checks reduce subsidy farming, and the Foundation/EGC/Labs oversight gives operational clarity. That is a good structure for it.

13

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

This is a necessary and good upgrade to the Scroll network.

14

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

I’m in support because this formalizes a piece of work that’s already too big for ad-hoc handling: Local Node evaluation, ongoing oversight, and community grants. A council with clear remit, public reporting, and a 6-month term gives us:

  • Throughput + accountability for Local Node proposals and monthly reviews.

  • A lightweight grants lane so we can actually show up at strategic events without dragging every $3–5k ask through a full DAO vote.

  • A feedback loop to iterate the Local Nodes framework instead of letting it ossify.
    The budget is ring-fenced, timelines are defined, and unused funds return. This is the right scaffolding to scale community without burning out the core team.

15

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

I’m in support because this squarely targets two problems we actually feel: delegate incentive misalignment and low-signal decision making. Carroll Mechanisms are a credible step beyond “vote on pre-baked options” or “just futarchy it,” and the plan is stage-gated (M1 → M2/M3 only if feasibility holds). A few reasons this makes sense:

  • High-leverage R&D for Scroll’s brand: if we want to be the L2 where DAOs thrive, leading on governance mechanism design is on-strategy.

  • Aligned funding structure: SAFE + token warrant at a friendly cap ties upside to success vs. a pure grant.

  • Clear deliverables: formal feasibility in M1, parameterization in M2, and product integration (Negation Game) in M3.

  • Risk-aware: we’re not committing to production governance changes now, this is research + prototyping with adoption contingent on results.

For the cost ($145k), the optionality is attractive. Worst case, we get publishable research, open simulations, and better tooling intuition. Best case, we pilot a mechanism that measurably improves proposal quality and fair, objective delegate rewards.

16

September Voting Cycle

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

We need a small, time-boxed council to move governance from discussion to execution: ship a 6-month roadmap, run controlled experiments, and publish bi-weekly updates, with a delegate veto backstop.

  • Focused + accountable: 3 members, 6 months, clear outputs (roadmap, RFPs, mid-term report, charter).

  • Good spend mix: ~120k SCR for stipends; majority for pilots, tooling, and grants.

  • COI hygiene: no dual seats on budget councils; conflicts policy included.

Light guardrails (not blockers): seat all 3 before any >25% disbursement; public tracker of approvals/spend; coordinate scopes with EGC/Community Council; keep vendor lanes open; track outcomes (experiments run, decision-cycle time, delegate participation).

This is the right scaffolding to accelerate progressive decentralization with community oversight intact.

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

It’s a low-risk, zero-cost sanity check that unblocks moving financial ops from manual execution to the Governor→Timelock flow.

  • Operational readiness: Verifies queue → delay → execute works end-to-end.
  • Safety first: Uses 1 SCR, minimal blast radius, to prove wiring before larger transfers.
  • Decentralization win: Reduces reliance on manual execution; improves auditability and predictability.
  • Clear success criteria: Pre/post treasury balance + tx hashes confirm the round-trip.

I am voting FOR, for this proposal.

We should keep rewarding real governance work and maintain momentum after Cycle 1. This iteration tightens incentives (tiered, performance-based), balances on-chain participation with forum rationale, and keeps costs reasonable (580k SCR across 8 months).

  • Continuity + retention: Keeps active delegates engaged and raises the bar on quality vs. drive-by voting.
  • Clear, tiered scoring: Voting participation, public rationales, and forum contributions weighted transparently; minimum 60% cutoff is sensible.
  • Pragmatic ops: Payout split (retro + forward) lets new delegates get recognized, with SCR-denominated rewards.

Expectation for next cycle (not blocking this one): explore a light VP-aware modifier (e.g., capped/sqrt bands) to better reflect quorum impact; publish a public scoring dashboard + short appeals window; drop call-attendance points until tracking is reliable.

I am voting FOR Avantgarde, as treasury manager.

Why Avantgarde

  • Fee alignment: No double performance fee; perf fee only on deployed non-SCR assets; clearer long-run cost control.
  • Curator control: Vault-level risk curation (vs. fully outsourcing strategy) gives us tighter guardrails.
  • Reporting: Pairing with Regen Financial for decision-grade attribution, not just updates.
  • Ecosystem fit: Willing to deploy missing pieces (e.g., MYSO on Scroll) and route flows to Scroll DeFi where it doesn’t compromise risk.

Expectations (non-blocking, but to be locked post-selection)

  • Timeline: Firm date for MYSO deployment on Scroll; confirm fee invariants post-deploy.
  • Policy: Written risk limits (stablecoin mix, venue caps, leverage/option notionals, drawdown brakes).
  • Ops: If CEXs are used, clarify custody, withdrawal thresholds, and pause/kill-switch.
  • Reporting: Weekly dashboard + monthly P&L/VaR/fees/liquidity ladder; short public summary.
  • Pilot: Start with a capped tranche, 60–90-day KPI review (net vs. hold-SCR and 50/50 SCR/stable baselines), then scale.
1 Like