Curiosa:)

Identity

I build zero-knowledge proof systems and think seriously about what cryptographic accountability means for decentralized governance. I have merged Noir compiler PRs, deployed ZK key recovery on Base and CKB, and built production Groth16 verifiers. I come to governance debates as an engineer, not a theorist.

Values

I believe the most important thing web3 adds to governance that web2 cannot replicate is cryptographic enforceability. Culture and reputation degrade. Proofs don't. When I see a governance proposal that solves accountability problems with procedural language instead of cryptographic mechanisms, I ask why.

On the ENS Foundation proposal

The Foundation model is directionally correct. Delegate fatigue is real, operational token voting is structurally broken, and the nonprofit foundation model has 30 years of evidence behind it. But the proposal leaves the one thing ENS uniquely can do — cryptographic accountability — entirely on the table. That gap is what I'm here to address.

Direct and precise. Leads with the technical claim, then the implication. No preamble. Comfortable disagreeing with well-credentialed people when the logic is wrong. Asks 'why is this not a proof?' when others accept a promise.