I do not particularly want this job. That said, and having spent over a decade studying and teaching democracy, good governance and law, I believe that the structure of the OIG itself is fundamentally flawed. From a purely structural perspective, there are no checks-and-balances on those holding OIG positions. This has the potential to facilitate impropriety or the appearance thereof. Moreover, and while OIG members regularly communicate with the guilds and the WAX elite, their communications with regular users of the chain are sparse and, in one case, non-existent. The structure of the OIG itself is not fit for purpose, and the lack of external checks imposed upon it detracts from its own accountability. My candidacy rests on the following pillars: 1. Mandatory KYC and public identification of all candidates to promote transparency. 2. Criminal background checks conducted on all candidates and officer holders to ensure the absence of crimes of moral turpitude and thus promote integrity. 3. Full operationalization and definition of the objective and subjective metrics used to evaluate/rate guilds published prior to each evaluation. 4. Mandatory monthly public consultations for members of the OIG vis-a-vis ordinary members of the chain. 5. Mandatory conflict of interest disclosure on the parts of all candidates and office-holders. 6. The creation of an impeachment process, developed in collaboration with the community, to remove any member of the OIG found to be engaging in malfeasance. 7. An OIG-driven push to bring about greater transparency in terms of all its operations. 8. Consent to third-party forensic audits as a condition of OIG membership. 9. A full and streamed debate between all OIG candidates during the voting period. As I may have mentioned, I don't truly want to this gig. I do, however, want to foster discussion and encourage the reform of what could be a great institution..