[Delegate Profile] Anoma Contributors

Governance
1

Delegate name: Anoma Contributors
Delegate address: 0xC3b97bc70f88950f1Cb7037380820e7213B64A6e

Summary

Anoma Contributors is a shared delegate for the people building on and around Anoma, and for anyone with a stake in Anoma reaching its full scope. Our goal is to advance Anoma and make it useful to everyone.

The delegate address is a Safe multisig rather than a personal wallet. Control of it can be shared and extended by adding more signers.

Locked and vesting XAN carries full voting power.
Delegate to us today without paying gas at:
šŸŒ https://anoma-contributors.eth.limo šŸŒ

Who we are

Anoma Contributors represents the people who build on and around Anoma: current and former employees, open-source contributors, and external collaborators ā€” all working across protocol engineering, research, applications, and ecosystem work.

You do not need to be a contributor to delegate to us. If you hold XAN and want it voted by people who work on the protocol and intend to keep working on it for years, this delegate is for you.

Our goal

Anoma should be useful to everyone: not just the people who build it, but its users, the developers writing applications on it, and the infrastructure projects that could build with it rather than around it.

Our commitment is to the protocol itself ā€” the Anoma Resource Machine, controllers, intent and solving infrastructure, and the applications built on them. That is the work worth doing, and governance should serve it. Use is what makes a protocol self-sustaining, and it is what gives XAN something to be valuable for.

How we vote

  • We support proposals that make the protocol more capable, and oppose those that make it merely more complicated.
  • We judge scope on whether a change can actually be reviewed. We vote against proposals that bundle unrelated changes, and ask that they be resubmitted separately.
  • Governance should not be where good work stalls. We would rather engage with a proposal while it can still be improved than raise objections at the vote.
  • We vote on the technical content of a proposal, not on its summary.
  • We do not support proposals whose case rests on price. What earns our support is giving people a reason to use XAN.
  • When what serves the protocol and what serves near-term token demand point different ways, we vote for the protocol, and our rationale says why.
1 Like