Proposal 178 (Q1773): Difference between revisions

**Nouncil Vote Results** 31 Yes, 13 No, 0 Abstain 5 Nouncillors abstained from the decision **YES WINS** --- **Vote Reasons** --- **andrewladdusaw** *Seems like a no-brainer. Great team, great mission, overhead far below the norm for capital allocation in the rest of the community. Easy yes for me.* **profwerder** *Agree —great team and seems like a good trial run but I think the team should have included more comp for themselves. This is going to be more work than you may realize. Love the experiment!* **Bigshot Klim** *no brainer for me too* **CHEFFO ⌐◧-◧** *this prop is good. it will attract high level talent with a clear on-boarding and application process. the numbers are clear and proportional, the team comps are correct. cant wait to see what is built. CHEFFO = YES* **shad_0** *it’s a lovely idea!* **fiveoceans_dev** *I vote for this proposal because I believe there should be competition for best allocation of treasury. The team is nounish and I trust that they will do a good job.* **Bigshot Klim** *We need more ways to keep new builders engaged and learn as they go in this space* **Joel Cares** *Fully support experiments in on-boarding new builders.* **Mach** *seems like something that could be done and reward retroactive funding instead of active comp* **BENJAMIN LATSKO ⌐◧-◧** *I think its a fun experiment. But not convinced its something sustainable and scalable. I also dont see how it will actually benefit the flywheel dynamics* **Graphic.⌐◨-◨** *Looks like a great way to bring in new established creatives into the nouns ecosystem!* --- For more Nouns DAO proposal discussion head to the Nouncil Discord: https://discord.gg/nouncil