My bias is that I believe in strict adherence to rules and regulations, and I look for opportunities to reject any proposal that has security implications. I have always done this, and I have almost always been the exception in the way I approach things.
I was like this as soon as I got involved in Web 3 and TAGGR.
My very first proposal review resulted in me arguing with X and @ulan about the security implications of introducing a new rewards option. I believe the community appreciated my approach, and I very quickly became a recognised reviewer, spotting numerous bugs, one of which was critical and for which I was awarded a bug bounty. Bounty’s have a tendency to divide opinion and stir up controversy amongst the community, and that time was no exception. History repeats itself.
I was invited into CodeGov (no longer a member and don't recommend it) because of my experience, attention to detail and strict adherence to rules and standards.
There is no shortage of examples of me rejecting IC OS proposals when others were happy to adopt. My research into these proposals was always detailed and always placed the importance of the proposal not misrepresenting itself as a priority. No motion proposal told me that this was important. It just obviously is (at least to me). I would reject these extremely critical proposals simply for the proposal summary missing out one of the relevant commits (or similar).
I received ‘bounties’ from Wenzel for my contributions (as have, and as do others).
I have been like this in my entire history reviewing WaterNeuron proposals
I’ve received two ‘bounties’ for this, and have even pointed out high security bugs, such as double spending bugs, for which no bounty was awarded (another thing that fed into my decision to stop reviewing WaterNeuron proposals and leave that community).
In any case, you’re aware of how passionately I defended small holders who would be left with no rewards after one of the proposals, and I passionately advocated for a fix (for the issue that I pointed out).
There are many more examples where I passionately argued with many members of the community who wished for WTN neurons to remain transferable. I continued to make the case that this was a security threat, and no doubt this is now a factor that contributes to WTN being difficult to attack from a governance perspective (as has been demonstrated).
Many more examples of my tendency to disagree with the status quo, or point things out that others have missed, could be brought up.
I have been like this for my entire history reviewing NNS proposals since having left CodeGov
There are countless debates (even arguments) where I keenly defend adherence to the IC Target Topology (this wasn’t the done thing before I started doing it).
My subnet management reviews have always been detailed and have always sought reasons to reject (or in other words ways for the IC to improve).
I have received many ‘bounties’ directly from DFINITY for my hard work.
I have now even received a bounty from a whale who appreciated my efforts to secure the IC
This is one of many posts I have created that highlight security issues on the IC. I had no idea who Adam Powell was before I posted it, and the bounty he awarded me was retrospective.
This has 100% gone to increasing the stake of my 8yr neuron. If I’m biased, it is, and always has been about protecting the IC and all who stake on it, and all who can see what the world can one day be with this technology.
For your information, that post is one of the main things that got the ball rolling with this whole NP independence initiative.
I would add that the IC is very lucky to have whales like Adam.
I take exception to your suggestion. Anyone who has followed me understands who I am and where my loyalties lie, particularly if you’ve seen me defending VP non-transferability recently.
In answer to your question below, I should not have to repeat my reasoning more than 5 clear and explicit times (just read my prior posts).