Jaf Delegate Thread

[Jaf]

General Info

Delegate Name: Jaf
Delegate Address: 0xCA85c622d4c61047f96e352CB919695486a193e6
Forum Handle: jaf
Tally Profile URL: Tally | mrjaf.eth
X: https://x.com/ImTheJaf
Discord: thejaf

About:

I’ve been in the Software Development industry for over twenty years, taking on various roles along the way. I started exploring the web3 space in 2017 and quickly transitioned into a full-time web3 citizen.

Previously, I spent four years as a Core Team Member at Push Protocol, where I took on multiple roles, including initiating and developing Push DAO. For the past 1.5 years, I’ve been working with the Ethereum Foundation in an Ecosystem Development role, focusing on Zero Knowledge and Programmable Cryptography.

I joined RARI DAO with the first launch of the Delegates LaunchPad Program and immediately loved how the DAO was evolving - the leadership, the structure, and the people part of it. Once I understood how things worked, I became an active participant in so many discussions and proposals where I felt I could contribute.

Motivation and Goals for RARI DAO

I genuinely believe RARI DAO is set up for massive success. By helping the DAO design, test, and validate strategies, it can become one of key infrastructure player for NFT marketplaces and projects, directly driving sustainable growth.

Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest:

I currently don’t serve as a delegate for any other DAOs.

[Jaf]

Proposal: RRC-37: RARI Foundation 2025 Operational Budget

Vote: FOR
Rationale: After being part of RARI DAO since Cohort 1 of the Launchpad Program, I’ve witnessed how the leadership team has operated transparently and responsibly when it comes to finances and safeguarding RARI DAO’s treasury.

They’ve clearly addressed every question and concern raised during proposal review calls, chats, and the forum. And lastly, I’m fully aligned with everything stated in the proposal. (detailed reasoning in forum thread).

Proposal: RRC 38: Updating and Migrating Delegate Launchpad Program to RARI chain

Vote: For
Rationale: Knowing firsthand the impact of the Delegate Launchpad Program on the DAO, I fully support its continuation. Even more, seeing improvements to the delegation model is a great way to keep evolving. Finally, this aligns with the governance migration to RARI Chain. (see forum thread).

Proposal: RRC-39: Multichain Primary & Secondary Protocol Fees

Vote: For
Rationale: I’ve fully supported this proposal from the beginning, as it aims to capture new and missed revenue streams for RARI DAO through additional chains.

RRC-40: RARI DAO Delegate Incentive Program

Voted: For

Rationale: Delegate incentivization has been a topic of discussion in the DAO for a long time. The proposed strategy is well thought out and a highly controllable experiment that promotes meaningful engagement from the delegates. (see forum thread).

[Jaf]

RRC 41: Response to RRC 39 - Proposed Mechanics of Secondary Fee Collection

Voted: For

This proposal makes a lot of sense and helps put the DAO in a better place by making it possible to capture funding that’s been missing.

[Jaf]

RRC-42: Q1 2025 RARI DAO Delegate Incentive Program Report

Note: for this proposal I had 0 voting power.

Voted: FOR

Rational:
In my opinion this program served bringing up the level of meaningful involvement from the Delegates in the DAO governance. It promoted better more critical conversations, and also created and also allows for external people to know about the incentives of being a “good delegate” in Rari DAO.

[Jaf]

RRC-43 Rari Staking Incentives Program

Vote: Abstain

Rational:
I am the proposer.

[Jaf]

RRC-44: Response to Current Crypto Markets & DAO Strategic Workshop

Voted: For

Rational :
Having participated in the strategic workshops and conversations during Gov calls, the proposal looks to me like a well-thought-out plan that takes the opinions of the most active DAO delegates into account in one way or another.

The KPIs also seem like a well-considered way to maintain good tracking and transparency for the DAO overall.

[Jaf]

[RRC-45] Fund Phase 1 of RARI Staking Rewards

Vote: For
Rationale: this is - as planned & agreed - the first step after the approval of the Staking Rewards Program.

[Jaf]

Test proposal DAO v2 - 2 (Security Council veto test)

Voted: FOR

Rationale
This proposal tests the Security Council veto in RARI DAO v2 on RARI Chain by simulating a veto to verify its proper function.

---

Test Poposal DAO v2 - 1(Tally | RARI DAO (v2) | Test Poposal DAO v2 - 1)

Voted: FOR

Rationale
This proposal tests RARI DAO v2 governance on RARI Chain.

[Jaf]

RRC-46: Q2 2025 RARI DAO Delegate Incentive Program Report

Voted: For

Rationale:
The program kicked off with good intentions: to level up governance by pushing delegates to do better and to bring in new delegates. I truly think it raised the bar for the delegates we already had.

After the first iteration, there were conversations and suggestions to make the proposal more inclusive. Even then there was consensus to keep supporting the original plan. This meant some of the most active and engaged delegates (and groups) really doubled down on the idea, committing to it even more.

I still believe this program offers a lot of value to the DAO, and I agree it needs some tweaks. But for those delegates who doubled down on supporting the proposal from the start to then reject it when the outcomes come in just doesn’t feel right.

[jarisjames]

RRC-46 brought a lot into focus.

Despite thoughtful revisions based on feedback, including accounting changes that @Jose_StableLab approved (screenshot included below for transparency), the final vote didn’t reflect the support that was signaled privately. That disconnect is telling.

The Delegate Incentive Program was born from a vision of elevating governance standards and creating clear incentives for delegates. And to its credit, it did raise the bar. But the rigid structure unintentionally excluded many contributors, particularly in an ecosystem where participation often ebbs and flows based on shifting responsibilities and timelines.

A more flexible system, one that rewards partial contributions like voting or forum engagement on a spectrum, would have been more inclusive. Ironically, when a replacement proposal aimed at solving exactly that was introduced, it was met with resistance. Not on the basis of logic, but what felt more like positional reflex. That’s not healthy for a DAO.

Even more confusing was the forum poll where Jose supported keeping the existing structure of RRC-40, while opposing the very payout it was built to facilitate. If that’s not mixed messaging, it certainly doesn’t inspire clarity.

At the heart of this tension is a deeper issue: a governance structure where some delegates still hold inherited influence from the old Foundation. This is power that was never earned through our current staking incentives or community support through organic delegation.

When voting power doesn’t evolve with the community, it begins to feel out of step. And that’s when contributors start disengaging. Builders lose momentum. Alignment fades.

@bitblondy’s recent comment under the Q2 payout proposal speak volumes. The DAO is in limbo. Programs are frozen. Governance is uncertain. And dual systems aren’t serving us.

This is precisely why we need to reconsider legacy delegations. Not to punish, but to restore clarity, reignite participation, and reset the playing field so that governance reflects today’s reality, not yesterday’s assumptions.