Retired: Christopher.conforti.eth

Note: Please read this post for complete information about delegation and how it works in Bancor.

Fellow Bancorians,
I recently discovered on our Snapshot that there is a ‘Delegate’ option. I would like to submit my candidacy for delegation. I will make my case, as well as inform the potential delegator as to why it’s a good idea to delegate rather than voting themselves or simply abstaining from voting.

Why should I delegate?

Delegation forms a more liquid form of a representative republic type of governance system–that is, when you delegate your vote, you’re effectively electing a representative in a governance body for the term of your delegation, which ends whenever you choose to revoke it. Electing a representative this way has many advantages:

  • It encourages diversity of choice; it’s fairly easy to become a delegate/representative in this system, therefore it follows that more people will do it, ensuring that the holder has a great selection.
  • It reduces overhead on the holder; it doesn’t matter how fast or slow the governance cycle is, how many votes there are or what they look like, it’s your delegate’s job to worry about it and you can rest easy assured that your values are being represented to your satisfaction.
  • It increases the likelihood of a vote reaching quorum; by concentrating voting weight in the hands of delegates who are dedicated voters, more voting power is utilized, increasing governance efficiency without locking people out or reducing the governance token supply. (Notably, if ‘voter rot’ were implemented, it would serve to incentivize delegates to vote since they would lose their delegations and would have to start more or less from scratch if they ‘rotted’.)
  • It doesn’t lock you in; you can redelegate/revoke your delegation at any time, meaning that if you catch wind of your delegate playing dirty, you can act immediately instead of waiting for the next election cycle.
  • It’s like a Build-A-Whale; delegates are much like whales in that they hold massive voting power, but the key difference is that delegates are always beholden to you, and they always have incentive to speak on your behalf. The more people back a delegate, the bigger the ‘whale’ they are.

Why should I delegate to you?

I hold the good of the protocol above all else in my decision making–that which relates to Bancor, of course–because I firmly believe that by governing the protocol well, prosperity will be brought about for all; traders and LPs alike. I believe that by lifting each other up before ourselves we can lift everyone, and that by building off of each other–for example, integrating other protocols for functionalities we want instead of building them in-house, but making sure our DAO itself holds a stake in the governance of those protocols we build on–we can all become more than the sum of our parts; I think that I’ve demonstrated this through my arguments elsewhere on this forum.

I also believe in Free Software (as defined by the Free Software Foundation) and open standards/technologies, and try to use them as much as possible. I have, and will continue to urge the DAO to use more open technologies and self-hosted services for our off-chain operations, as I believe that to be best for our long-term health; a server that we control running a service that we need (e.g., I (or a task group) can build us a Mumble server, or we can always build our own IRC network) will, at the end of the day, nearly always be more robust than simply engaging someone else’s (off-chain) services.

As your representative, I will make it my duty to make the weight of my vote count for the good of the DAO and the protocol. If you value those same things that I do, adding your weight to my vote will show solid support for those values, and I will ensure you are represented. With your voting weight and my dedication to voting, together we will build the free market of tomorrow.

You can rest assured that I will act in good faith and sound judgement; it makes little difference to me what weight my vote carries, nor the size of the check I’m offered as far as which way I vote. My decision must come from my philosophy, which doesn’t count the weight of something as primitive and random as my voting weight at a given time. Voting on behalf of others, at any scale, I try my best to make honest and carefully calculated decisions–“measure twice, cut once.”

Unless the consensus among my delegators is for me to do otherwise, I intend to signal my vote both on the forums, and on my Mastodon profile (, and I will do my best to give at least 24 hours of notice before I vote; I prefer to declare my votes on Fridays. This will allow my delegators time to act appropriately. In the unlikely event that I change my vote last minute or fail to signal ahead of time, I will of course be available to speak, and will happily explain myself.

My goals are to improve my financial situation so I can devote more time to this, and to automate everything.

What should I do?

If you’re interested in delegating to me, here’s what you do:

  • Go to Bancor’s Snapshot. Make sure your wallet is connected.
  • On the left, there is a list with four options; select ‘Delegate’.
  • In the ‘To’ field, put your chosen delegate’s address or ENS name (in my case, “christopher.conforti.eth”, without the quotes.)
  • The ‘Space’ field should read “bancornetwork.eth” (again, without the quotes).
  • Click ‘Confirm’ and approve the transaction.

Thank you for reading my proposal, and for your consideration.

To reach me:

If you can’t reach me on the forums for whatever reason, check my forum profile and my website for ways to get in touch with me.

1 Like

I totally missed that. Thanks! Is there anything I need to change here?

1 Like

Looks fine to me!
It’s totally up to you how you go about it.


Proposal: Whitelist BBS with External IL Protection

I will vote FOR this proposal. Though the project doesn’t even have a pool yet, it’s very interesting, has much potential, and (so far as I am aware) uniquely (to date), the project maintainer has offered to bear the brunt of impermanent loss themselves (via some TKN held for exiting LPs) until the project matures. This way of doing it not only makes it a better deal for us, but as the submitter points out, it could “become a new token launch best practice” if this goes our way, and I agree. Given that the submitter is willingly putting themselves in the fire instead of expecting us to do it entirely ourselves, I’m willing to put a little faith in them.

Guidelines for Vote Delegation on Snapshot (BIP12 Addendum #2)

I will for FOR this proposal, as I made clear in my post in its thread.

Proposal: 350k Co-investment / 1% Trading Fee on ICHI Pool

I will vote AGAINST this proposal. I expressed my concerns in my first post in the thread. While I don’t necessarily see an issue with bringing the fee up to 1% on an experimental basis, it’s probably a bit steep and others in the discussion pointed this out too. I would rather we wait until we have more liquidity depth in the pool before playing with the fees too much and I feel that liquidity mining rewards are a better tool for that. I fully support the co-investment increase, but as they are bundled together I cannot support the proposal as a whole.

Proposal : Whitelist Gitcoin (GTC) / 250K BNT Co-Investment

I will vote FOR this proposal. GitCoin isn’t a terribly new project, I’ve heard it buzzing around for a while. It will enable us a way to pay our developers and offer bounties, the tokenomics seem sound to me. I see no reason not to bring it onboard, despite the complete lack of a pool for it.

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 250K BNT on Rarible (RARI) Pool

I will vote FOR this proposal. Initially, the proposal also included a whitelist and I did not support it mainly because we have a pool and (at the time) it had a depth of zero. Now it seems someone has added ~$10k of depth. It turns out it was already whitelisted (which it didn’t appear to be in the screenshot I posted, notably :thinking:) and is in need of a co-investment increase only. Seeing as it’s already whitelisted, it seems prudent to try to rescue it. I do think it should be followed up with LMR proposal, however.

Proposal: Update whitelisting and co-investment increase quorum and supermajority requirements

I will vote FOR this proposal. When I first started reading, I was vehemently against primarily because it looked like they were going to propose something that was brought up in another thread, and I spoke against that and made it very clear why I thought it was a terrible idea.
However, the actual proposal laid out here (by none other than the excellent @mbr and @tfns) is fairly sound and it seems that it seeks to protect the DAO and the protocol strictly without silencing others, so it has my support.
Update: This proposal has recently been updated with different parameters. However, I find the new parameters agreeable, so my vote hasn’t changed.

Proposal: Whitelist DAPP Network (DAPP) w/ 500k Co-Investment and External IL Protection

I will vote FOR this proposal. DAPP is a very interesting project with a sizable userbase, and we would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to become the liquidity hub for this network. Their EdgeOS project–they might wanna rename it before Micro$oft gets a sniff of it–is an especially interesting premise.

(BIP) Reallocate 50% of Vortex Burner vBNT for Bancor Brand Awareness Campaigns

I will vote AGAINST this proposal. I don’t think we should be using the Vortex Burner for this–as pointed out in the thread, it’s a liquidity locking device. And by my understanding, it’s not modular and is in fact part of our security system; it is purpose-built, and that purpose doesn’t include marketing. Even if we were to do this, I think 50% is absurd portion. I don’t deny that we have a problem with public awareness, but frankly I think this is a poor way to solve it.


My votes have been placed, as indicated, on these proposals:

Guidelines for Vote Delegation on Snapshot (BIP12 Addendum #2)

Proposal: 350k Co-investment / 1% Trading Fee on ICHI Pool

Proposal : Whitelist Gitcoin (GTC) / 250K BNT Co-Investment

Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 250K BNT on Rarible (RARI) Pool

Proposal: Update whitelisting and co-investment increase quorum and supermajority requirements

The following have not been submitted for vote yet:

Proposal: Whitelist BBS with External IL Protection

Proposal: Whitelist DAPP Network (DAPP) w/ 500k Co-Investment and External IL Protection

(BIP) Reallocate 50% of Vortex Burner vBNT for Bancor Brand Awareness Campaigns

I will continue to watch these proposals to see if I’ll be changing my stance on them by next cycle.

1 Like

Just as a note to anyone considering @ccc as a delegate - I want to offer my full endorsement. @ccc is a relatively new addition to the DAO, but has quickly built a reputation as a dedicated, thoughtful, and creative contributor to DAO discussions.

With an account only 50 days old at the time of writing, on a per unit time basis, @ccc has a similar level of engagement with DAO operations as some of the veteran community members who have been with us since the launch of v2.1, eight months ago.

Read time: 21 h
Posts read: 681
Topics viewed: 94


Proposal to Increase Co investment for LRC to 300,000 BNT

I will vote FOR this proposal in its current state. Initially this proposal asked for 800k, and I didn’t support that; the author has since reduced the co-investment ask to 300k, and I think that is much more reasonable, so I support it.

Holo (HOT) - BancorDAO Whitelist Proposal

I will vote FOR this proposal. Entertainment is a massive industry that Holo seeks to capture. I feel that there is a bit of vagueness as to how exactly the project proposes to accomplish that, but there isn’t anything that stands out to me as bad and therefore I’m happy to let them do what they do.

Rentible (RNB) - BancorDAO Whitelist Proposal

I will vote FOR this proposal. I know from first-hand experience just how lucrative a market real estate is; we would be foolish not to connect ourselves to it so closely.

Proposal to Increase co investment on NMR to 750,000 BNT

I will vote FOR this proposal, as stated in this thread.

Proposal to Increase fee on GNO pool to .5%

I will vote AGAINST this proposal in favor of the standardized fee.

Proposal to Whitelist NOIA (Syntropy). 150k co-investment and voter incentive (2nd attempt)

I will vote FOR this proposal. Syntropy represents exactly the kind of project that I think will really carry DeFi into everyday mainstream use; giving the legacy Internet a portal into the new one. Becoming the liquidity hub on Ethereum for this project would be a smart move, I think.


LRC updated to 300K co invest


Votes placed as indicated!

Proposal to Increase Co investment for LRC to 300,000 BNT

Proposal to Whitelist Holo (HOT)

Proposal to Whitelist Rentible (RNB)

Proposal to Increase co investment on NMR to 500,000 BNT

Proposal to Increase fee on GNO pool to .5%

Proposal to Whitelist NOIA (Syntropy). 150k co-investment and voter incentive (2nd attempt)

In addition, I declared my support for the following proposal and forgot to announce it here, but I voted FOR.

Proposal to Whitelist Chiliz (CHZ)

1 Like

The links aren’t working for me, can you edit them please? Thanks!

1 Like

My apologies, I was away on urgent business; I will be happy to! The links are working for me; could you specify the problem you’re having?

1 Like

I tried them on my phone and they didn’t work. Seems like the links point to a local ipfs, so could be that. Could you put a direct link instead? Or both if you prefer. Thanks!

1 Like

I have corrected all previous links.


I apologize profusely for this late notice. I will be ABSTAINing from all votes this week, as I have not declared any votes and have not had the opportunity to read enough about anything on the table to inform any opinions I might have.

As I have indicated elsewhere, I was away this week on urgent business which required my full attention. For the time being, I must give this business my full attention periodically; I apologize for any issues this may cause for my delegators, and between it and my day job this is bordering on catastrophic for my workflow, but I am blood-bound.

From this point, however, I will do my best to compensate; I will reorganize my workflow to try to squeeze more efficiency out of it so I can do better work than I have been with the limited time I have to work with. Some (no more than a week) study, meditation, and prayer will be required; when that’s done, the new workflow will be implemented immediately. It will be better–I would not implement it otherwise–but it will only be refined (and eventually perfected) over following weeks.

The ultimate effect of this is that this week there won’t appear to be any change in my work quality from what I have been providing–but the following weeks will see improvements from me. The silver lining is that when I have more time to devote to this, these improvements should scale.

Again, I apologize for my failure to do my job, and I will spare no effort in improving the quality of my future work.

Just a quick reminder that I often post on Mastodon. Follow me there for notifications about when I post vote declarations, as well as my quick thoughts on projects tabled/floating about the defi-sphere.

(Side note: If BancorDAO ever has a Mastodon instance [or supports me in building one] I’ll move my profile there.)

Apologies for the late post. As usual, my time was limited.

Proposal : Migrate AXS 250k Co-Investment to New Axie Infinity (AXS) Contract

This proposal is basic maintenance. Of course I’m voting FOR it, but these sorts of things should be considered patches; we honestly shouldn’t need to vote on this.

Proposal : Whitelist ANKR - 100K Co-Invest

I will vote FOR this proposal. The project provides “one-click” blockchain node setup using virtual containers run on clouds provided by service providers; the ANKR token is how service is bought and how service providers are paid for sharing their computing resources. There are no other places to stake ANKR yet, so being the first would bring benefits.

Proposal : Increase ROOK co investment by 600,000 BNT

I will vote FOR this proposal. Keeper provides on-chain underwriting services for borrowers, as well as internally handling liquidation of underwater positions without placing them on the open market. It incentivizes other keepers to be assimilated without being destructive or playing dirty. It also introduced kCompound, which utilizes the Compound protocol to provide safer loans. We’ve also integrated Keeper to power limit orders on our trade UI, with apparent benefit.

Proposal : Whitelist NEXO - 250K Co-Invest

I will vote FOR this proposal. I’ve had personal experience with Nexo, and their service has been around for some time. I’m honestly surprised we haven’t already whitelisted them. They are a centralized organization that provides services somewhat similar to Maker; collateralized crypto lending. Loans may be drawn directly to one’s bank account, or one may borrow crypto. They also have a card coming Soon™.

Whitelist Union Protocol Governance Token (UNN), Default 20,000 BNT Co-Investment

I will vote FOR this proposal. Union is a suite of individual insurance-like protection coverage tools that can be composed to form a sort of totally-custom blockchain insurance policy. Protections range from smart contract bugs/exploits to gas prices. This has many applications and this one should be kept close.

Proposal : Whitelist Perpetual Protocol (PERP)

I will vote FOR this proposal. If my understanding is correct, Perpetual is sort of like Bancor for derivatives, but with more of a focus on trading rather than the (more backend-oriented, I guess) AMM aspect. Perpetual uses a “Virtual AMM” to allow you to trade derivatives, which are a kind of “trading without trading just yet” kind of contract, with complete liquidity. (The concept is kind of new to me, I’m still putting it together in my head, but I think I got it.)

Proposal: Extend LM rewards on MKR/BNT pool

I will vote FOR this proposal. We have plenty of space in our MKR pool, but we are suffering a huge drought in liquidity. This must be rectified as quickly as possible! I will happily vote to extend LM rewards on this pool in an effort to bring this pool up to a competitive level.

Proposal. Experiment to assess effect of 0.1% swap fee on USDT stable coin pool

I will vote FOR this proposal. It’s a simple, two-week experiment of cutting the fee on the USDT pool in half (from 0.2% to 0.1%). I think this will probably result in an uptick of volume, coming from the pool being more attractive to aggregators. I can’t say that we should leave it at that; I think ultimately we should split the difference (at 0.15%) since we don’t want to make the pool unattractive to LPs.

Proposal: Co-investment limit Increase on ETH

I must ABSTAIN from this proposal. I cannot find the documents it references; knowledge is insufficient to make a reasonably well-considered decision.

Proposal: Whitelist THORChain (ERC-20 RUNE) + 600k Co-Invest

I must ABSTAIN from this proposal. Evidently, this was drafted in private (which is fine), and evidently it was deemed acceptable to drop this right into Level 2 scarcely hours before it was supposed to be put to vote (which is decidedly not so fine). Let me be clear; I find this behavior unacceptable, because it doesn’t leave time for voters to properly review the proposal and, I hope I’m mistaken, but frankly it looks like you’re trying to ram something through the process–something I’d expect from scheming politicians, not upstanding DAO members. Following this, I’ll be making a couple of proposals of my own regarding certain governance operations.

Thank you! I have not delegated yet, but I appreciate seeing everyone opinions.


1 Like

You’re quite welcome!

As a general reminder, I’m available to talk most of the time! I can be reached on Jami at ‘bancor-ccc’.

As time goes on I plan to build infrastructure (in the name of Bancor DAO, with permission of course) to support this and other communications projects I have in the works.

In any case, anyone can add ‘bancor-ccc’ to their contacts and ping me there at any time! The only reason I wouldn’t be online there is if I have a network outage, which is not as rare as I’d like. Please do ask before calling me directly, however, as all of my Governance telecommunications are currently in a more private area of my home until I can build out and move it to a separate device in another space. Also, I may not respond immediately, because I do have a day job, but I will respond to you, I promise; I do not ignore the people I serve.

EDIT: Changed it to ‘bancor-ccc’ as apparently Jami “rendezvous points” are not the same thing as group chats. Why that is, I don’t know, but I didn’t know it was that way until now (I had no reason to investigate because I don’t have friends :cry:) so until I figure it out, just reach me at my Jami account.


Votes placed as declared:

Extra votes:

I voted only for Arbitrum. I don’t know enough about the alternatives to rank them, and I’ve made it clear how I feel about Polygon.

Votes abstained:

I wasn’t able to find enough data, so I didn’t feel confident that I was making an informed decision. Apparently we’ve lost track of some of our archives.

I saved this one for last, because it really annoyed me. From where I’m standing, it looks like a fresh, hot proposal (that I have to take time to research before I can even consider placing a vote on it, because I am very careful about what I do with other people’s votes) just got dropped into my lap on voting day with no warning. Reviewing a given proposal takes a significant chunk of time, at least a good portion of a day; delegates review all proposals (or they should, as much as they can). I understand that it’s been in (private) draft for a while, but I personally hadn’t even heard of THORChain until today; it’s unreasonable, no matter the size of your project, to expect everyone to know who you are and what you do right off the bat, and I feel like that’s what’s being expected of me. Sure, the vote goes on for three days, but I shouldn’t have to start researching a proposal the day it goes to vote; I think that’s an absurd way to carry out the task of governance, and we shouldn’t be asked to do it like that. We need time to review proposals; that doesn’t just go for me, because of my limited time, that goes for all voters, independent or delegate, because all voters have lives.
EDIT: I’d like to add that I’ve since read up on THORChain (research is not complete) and I am thoroughly intrigued and I really like what I see; had it been posted by Friday (or at least before Monday) or waited until next week to go to vote, I likely would have given this proposal a glowing FOR. However, I am constrained by, among others, the following two rules: a) I do not vote on proposals that I research after they go to vote, even if the vote is still active when I finish my research, and b) I vote on Mondays only, because I use the rest of the week to research outstanding Level 1 proposals as I can make time. I’m afraid I simply cannot be persuaded to break the rules I set for myself, especially given that I propose to be casting votes on behalf of others; in fact, it’s precisely for that reason that I will not break from principle. To some, DAO participation is a hobby; I have made it my solemn duty.