Oh, thanks for the nice comments! Let me know if you have any questions/thoughts and feel free to share my application with others so they can also get a chance to ask questions. 
Btw, at this stage I think it’s highly unlikely I’ll be voted in as Lead, so if you’d like to keep me around supporting the Treasury efforts in the future, please consider voting me in as a Grant Reviewer when the Firefly vote comes out.
Some community members on Discord suggested I try to do a better job highlighting the differences between me and the other candidates (to kickstart some kind of discussion in public), so here goes.
You should vote for me because…
-
I’ve been a contributing member of our community for well over 5 years now, longer than many IF employees. I’ve been around long enough to have seen a lot, with respect to both IOTA governance and tech. -
Of all the candidates, it seems I’m the only one who has actually been a Grant Reviewer in the real world (bonus: for one of the most rigorous & prestigious grant programs in the world - the same folks that funded the birth of Google and many other innovations we all use on a daily basis).
-
Of all the candidates, I applied the most scrutiny to the proposals we reviewed. I gave them the lowest scores out of everyone else, with actionable steps for how to fix them, while maintaining clear and concise communication. It’s worth noting (again) that these were legitimately bad proposals - literally copy paste jobs that Phylo did in a few mins for the sake of this challenge. Yet, somehow, most of the reviewers thought that was good enough or close to good enough to qualify for the next phase of Treasury funding. If you have higher standards than this, vote for me.
-
I was one of the few candidates who reviewed both the technical & non-technical proposals. Many of the issues I raised were not raised by anyone else. Some of the other reviewers chose to reject the proposals on technicalities, rather than addressing the real issues, perhaps because they didn’t fully understand what was being proposed.
-
I care about readability. For reference, just have a look at my reviews compared to that of most other candidates. Mine are concise, clear, easy to read, and aligned with the evaluation rubric. Can’t say the same about other candidates. Some even decided to use the proposal reviews as a platform to promote their random ideas, further extending their walls-of-text with even more unnecessary filler, in complete disregard of the reader’s experience. Here’s a quick piece of feedback I screenshotted from our Shimmer governance channel on Discord:
I wholeheartedly agree with Lenis, and this will be the first issue I’ll address (with respect to the Treasury, not overall governance) if I’m voted in, as it is pointless to have a Treasury framework in place if no one wants to engage with it. To address it, I would:
-
Create simple and beautiful visualizations that explain easily at-a-glance to laymen the entire Treasury framework, application process and so on, then centralize all that info on a webpage -
Propose significantly better templates that grantees must follow when applying for Treasury funding, so we can keep things standardized & with good UX
-
Propose significantly better templates that other grant reviewers should follow when conducting their reviews, so we can keep things standardized & with good UX
Among other things.
There’s so much room for improvement across so many different areas. So, in short: vote for me if you’d like to see me involved in the Treasury efforts. I’m arguably the most qualified candidate, but don’t take my word for it – simply compare my application/reviews to that of other candidates and judge for yourself.
Cheers.