0xb47a70df538b9a3b591bc5d75da66a04c879b291 (Q2863): Difference between revisions

From Nouns Dev
(‎Changed an Item)
(‎Changed an Item)
 
Property / Opposed
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / rank
Normal rank
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / qualifier
Vote Weight: 2
Amount2
Unit1
 
Property / Opposed
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / rank
Normal rank
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 138 / qualifier
Vote Weight: 2
Amount2
Unit1
 
Property / Opposed
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / rank
Normal rank
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 81 / qualifier
Vote Weight: 1
Amount1
Unit1
 
Property / Opposed
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / rank
Normal rank
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 78 / qualifier
Vote Weight: 1
Amount1
Unit1
 
Property / Supported
 
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / rank
Normal rank
 
Property / Supported: Proposal 134 / qualifier
Vote Weight: 2
Amount2
Unit1
 
Property / Opposed
 
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / Opposed: Proposal 151 / qualifier
 
Vote Weight: 2
Amount2
Unit1
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
Amount2
Unit1
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
Amount1
Unit1
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
Amount1
Unit1
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
Amount2
Unit1
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

    0 references
    0 references
    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
    0 references
    no details on how eth will be spent, no breakdown. Cmon.
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    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
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references