Jaf Delegate Thread

[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.

[Jaf]

RRC-47: Q2 2025 Delegate Incentive Program Report (amendment)

Voted: For

Rational:
As I commented previously: It’s well-thought-out and feels more in line with our DAO’s reality.

[Jaf]

RRC: 48: Grow3dge Accelerator: Strategic Support for Rari Foundation and DAO Growth

Voted: For

Rantionale:
I signaled against the original proposal because I didn’t feel it provided a good ROI for the DAO. However, the updates to the proposal seem much more reasonable now. It looks like a low-cost way for us to strengthen our relationship with other groups, and if all goes well, we can continue to do so in the future. As I’ve said before, I’m always up for supporting educational programs initiatives.

[Jaf]

RRC-48: Rarible Creator Fund Program

Voted: For

Rationale:

• Aligned with the DAO goals
• Good project plan overall
• well defined Risk & mitigation strategy
• I support the team behind this proposal.

[Jaf]

[RRC-49] Disbursement of Superboard Quest Rewards

Vote: For
Rationale: Quick rewards disbursement reflects well on the DAO. There’s no reason to delay something that was already committed to and has been waiting for some time.

[Jaf]

RRC-50: Set Rarible ExchangeV2 Protocol Fee

Voted: For

Rationale: this nails the sweet spot. free entry to attract fresh buyers, but rewards only for real fees paid. More fair, and will help continuouos growth.

[Jaf]

RRC-51: Treasury Management Empowerment Program

(Rari v1)
Voted: For

I voted yes. It makes treasury management more efficient and stable. It also fixes past missed opportunities and should help boost RARI demand. The DAO still keeps oversight through yearly renewals, so accountability stays in place.

---

RRC-51: Establishment of the Rarible Creator Fund Working Group

(Rari v2)
Voted: For

I voted yes. It’s a good proposal with a clear goal. It’s well structured, has clear roles, and uses an already approved budget, so no extra cost.

---

RRC-52: RARI DAO Security Council Election Proposal

(Rari v2)
Voted: For

I voted yes. This setup mixes appointed and elected seats in a way that keeps things accountable. The DAO can remove members if needed, roles are clearly defined, and it opens the door for more elected seats down the line.

---

RRC-52: Set Rarible ExchangeV2 Protocol Fee

(Rari v1)
Voted: For

i voted yes. Free entry brings new buyers in, and rewards go only to real spenders. Fair and great for long-term growth.

[Jaf]

Proposal: RRC-53: Support the “Return to Form” Group Drop and Gallery Event

Vote: FOR

Rationale:

• budget breakdown looks reasonable
• promotion plans and goals are solid
• timeline aligns well with the overall plans

[Jaf]

Tally | Rari DAO (v1) | RRC-54: Rarible ExchangeV2 Account Abstraction Support

Voted: FOR

Rationale:
Supporting this keeps Rarible aligned with the modern wallet stack. AA, Safes, and modular accounts are where users live now.

[Jaf]

Proposal: RRC-XX: Fund Phase 2 of RARI Staking Rewards

Vote: FOR

Rationale:
As mentioned before, this works well for me. Phase 2 maintains incentive alignment while avoiding unnecessary spend.

It also gives us room to assess whether staking is meaningfully increasing governance participation before allocating additional treasury resources.

[Jaf]

Proposal: Activate DAO ETH Held on Rari Chain Through Staking

Vote: FOR

Rationale:
The concerns raised by myself and other delegates were properly addressed, and the proposal positions the DAO well to take advantage of upcoming opportunities. The transparency mechanisms also appear appropriate to ensure the DAO remains informed of planned actions.

[Jaf]

RRC-55: Reduce Sell Fee to 1.5% to Enhance User-Friendliness

Voted: Against

Rationale:
The proposal didn’t follow the established RARI DAO guidelines. Makes it INVALID.