Proposal 257 (Q122): Difference between revisions

Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 257, which is 13 for, 19 against and 14 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opinions opposing this proposal: 1. The past three Nouns Fairs seemed to prioritize creating a lively atmosphere more than genuinely onboarding builders, and they did not showcase Nounish ideas and products born at hackathons (perhaps its not apparent yet, as some builders might not have built products on the spot but developed ideas later). 2. Financial details are excessively indulgent: (1) the average cost of each fair is $38,438, while the bounty for rewarding builders is only $5,000, accounting for 13%, with the rest considered as marketing costs; there is too much budget allocation for marketing surrounding the Hackthon; (2) after three iterations, some aspects could be standardized and streamlined to avoid reinventing the wheel, such as reusing materials, resulting in instances of financial waste; (3) the costs for each event vary, but in planning, each is set the same; if the funds are not fully used, will they be returned to the treasury? 3. Data does not meet expected plans. The organizers initial goal was 1,000 Twitter followers, but after the first event, the actual number was 580. After hosting three events, Nouns Amigos currently has 1,200 followers, with the growth rate gradually decreasing and an average of 300 new followers per event. 4. In Proposal 180, the team pledged to save funds, with excess funds to be returned to NounsDAO. However, this statement is removed in the current proposal, and after 36 hours of inquiring on Discord, there has still been no response. The team has made some changes in the crucial details of the proposals financial aspect. It makes me feel that the team deliberately doesnt want to clarify the issue of financial waste, and I am concerned about whether the team might obtain undue benefits from the implementation. Supporting views on the proposal: 1. The issue is n