0xb47a70df538b9a3b591bc5d75da66a04c879b291 (Q2863): Difference between revisions
From Nouns Dev
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / qualifier | |||||||
| |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / qualifier | |||||||
| |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / qualifier | |||||||
| |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / qualifier | |||||||
| |||||||
Property / Supported | |||||||
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / rank | |||||||
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / qualifier | |||||||
| |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Weight: 2
| |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Reason: No doubt, small grants is important. It went through some changes over time however, and is imbalanced in terms of responsibility now. I am afraid if we continue increasing the pool size without scaling it into a small grants / NSFW pod that we concentrate too much power into the hands of an individual. It seems like a pod but it isn’t one. The DAO only compensates one person for it. Small grants needs a structural change to share the burden of responsibility and to mitigate risks. For a healthy future of the DAO we need to have a pod also to protect the DAO against black swan events. With more shared responsibility we can mitigate risks and distribute the burden of work load in a fair way. I would welcome it if we could have a discussion about this topic before we continue with this prop as it drew already quite some controversy. | |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Weight: 2
| |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Reason: Although the idea of the game show seems fun, I just don’t see a fit for nouns. We won’t have a dedicated video ready in time, leaving us with nothing more than a game with noggles floating in space. So people won’t get an idea about nouns in any case. I don’t see nouns promoting our nounish-ness as a commercialised video add where the only thing we do is promoting a prize pool we have nothing to do with. It does not fit us. If we want to reach an audience via pure adds I would suggest making a full page in the NYT or some other newspaper/magazine. | |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Weight: 1
| |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Reason: see prop 82 | |||||||
Property / Opposed | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Weight: 1
| |||||||
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Reason: no details on how eth will be spent, no breakdown. Cmon. | |||||||
Property / Supported | |||||||
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Weight: 2
| |||||||
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / qualifier | |||||||
Vote Reason: I think we should make a threshold an opt-in and not an opt out. We are having a system which makes noun holders unequal and creates a class. Those who can propose and those who cant. |
Latest revision as of 16:30, 1 July 2023
Individual
Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
---|---|---|---|
English | 0xb47a70df538b9a3b591bc5d75da66a04c879b291 |
Individual |
Statements
No doubt, small grants is important. It went through some changes over time however, and is imbalanced in terms of responsibility now. I am afraid if we continue increasing the pool size without scaling it into a small grants / NSFW pod that we concentrate too much power into the hands of an individual. It seems like a pod but it isn’t one. The DAO only compensates one person for it. Small grants needs a structural change to share the burden of responsibility and to mitigate risks. For a healthy future of the DAO we need to have a pod also to protect the DAO against black swan events. With more shared responsibility we can mitigate risks and distribute the burden of work load in a fair way. I would welcome it if we could have a discussion about this topic before we continue with this prop as it drew already quite some controversy.
0 references
Although the idea of the game show seems fun, I just don’t see a fit for nouns. We won’t have a dedicated video ready in time, leaving us with nothing more than a game with noggles floating in space. So people won’t get an idea about nouns in any case. I don’t see nouns promoting our nounish-ness as a commercialised video add where the only thing we do is promoting a prize pool we have nothing to do with. It does not fit us. If we want to reach an audience via pure adds I would suggest making a full page in the NYT or some other newspaper/magazine.
0 references
no details on how eth will be spent, no breakdown. Cmon.
0 references
I think we should make a threshold an opt-in and not an opt out. We are having a system which makes noun holders unequal and creates a class. Those who can propose and those who cant.
0 references