Proposal 86 (Q1956): Difference between revisions
From Nouns Dev
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
||||||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||||||
| Property / Team Name | |||||||
| Property / Team Name: I cannot find the name of the team or builder in the provided text / rank | |||||||
| Property / Team Size | |||||||
1
| |||||||
| Property / Team Size: 1 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
| Property / Abstain Count | |||||||
77
| |||||||
| Property / Abstain Count: 77 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
| Property / Team Name | |||||||
The proposal does not provide the name of the team or builder | |||||||
| Property / Team Name: The proposal does not provide the name of the team or builder / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Latest revision as of 13:44, 17 July 2023
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 86 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
32
0 references
86
0 references
Mint a PoolTogether Judge NFT
0 references
2
0 references
18
0 references
27 May 2022
0 references
We dont feel nuanced enough on the legal details to make a decision to contribute so much ETH to this cause.
0 references
27 May 2022
0 references
Mint a PoolTogether Judge NFT
0 references
43
We believe this lawsuit is a serious deterrent to legitimate crypto innovation, and several of us have personally donated to this cause. Generally we think the DAO should only engage in philanthropy when the efforts of the collective are more impactful than efforts of the individual. That may indeed be the case here, but we believe more discussion is needed to address points brought up by fellow DAO members.
0 references
Dont know enough about this to confidently take a side
0 references
I do not understand the legal nuances involved here and what impact they may have going forward and thus cannot, in good faith, vote in one direction or another.
0 references
10
Ultimately, Nouncil was not able to reach a consensus on this Prop so we are voting to Abstain. After the majority vote to Abstain (16), all other votes cast were against (12.) Overall, in discussions, we felt that there are too many unknowns/unclear items WRT the case. Even if the Plaintiffs motivations could be politically motivated, it seems PT may have indeed broken some lottery and/or banking laws in NY, or at least, it is far from a sure thing that they didnt. Moreover, it was mentioned that this should probably have been a planned-for eventuality for such a protocol (to be sued by the State) and Nouncil worries about the precedent of deploying Nouns treasury to fund this kind of predictable legal battle (hat tip Wag.) On top of the above, this was also not a small ask (which might have found broader support.) We wish PoolTogether the best with this case, but we couldnt vote to support this Proposal at this time.
0 references
Do not carry the proper knowledge on this matter to confidently vote yes or no.
0 references
1
0 references
77
0 references
The proposal does not provide the name of the team or builder
0 references
