0x4754b7e3dede42d71d6c92978f25f306176ec7e9 (Q391): Difference between revisions

@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 289
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 289 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 289 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 279
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 279 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 279 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 278
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 278 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 278 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 226
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 226 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 226 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 189
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 189 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 189 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 8Amount 8
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 183
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 183 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 183 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 8Amount 8
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 142
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 142 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 142 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 29Amount 29
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 141
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 141 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 141 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 30Amount 30
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 134
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 134 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 134 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 31Amount 31
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 94
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 94 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 94 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 28Amount 28
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 89
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 89 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 89 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 39Amount 39
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
-Proposal 58
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 58 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 58 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 11Amount 11
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 280
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 280 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 280 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 261
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 261 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 261 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 238
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 238 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 238 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 155
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 155 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 155 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 32Amount 32
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 143
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 143 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 143 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 29Amount 29
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 95
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 95 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 95 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 29Amount 29
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 93
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 93 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 93 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 28Amount 28
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 90
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 90 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 90 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 41Amount 41
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 87
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 87 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 87 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 41Amount 41
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 84
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 84 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 84 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 42Amount 42
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 77
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 77 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 77 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 43Amount 43
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 63
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 63 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 63 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 15Amount 15
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 61
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 61 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 61 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 14Amount 14
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
-Proposal 54
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 54 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 54 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 6Amount 6
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Abstained @@
-Proposal 86
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 86 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 86 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 43Amount 43
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Abstained @@
-Proposal 57
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 57 / rank @@
-Normal rank
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 57 / qualifier @@
-Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 289
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 289 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 289 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 289 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: when I voted yes on the last nounish proposal, I gave the following reason:  I support this experiment, but only plan to support renewal if this generates meaningful impressions/views, even though I expect content to be high quality regardless  I appreciate the high quality content as well as Goldy and team being open to feedback, but even in the optimistic case I dont see a path to getting distribution to where it needs to be to justify the expense.
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 279
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 279 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 279 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 279 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: would support a revised proposal
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 278
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 278 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 278 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 278 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: charitable giving is more efficient at the personal level
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 189
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 189 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 189 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 8Amount 8
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 189 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: agree w/ noun 12 reasoning
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 183
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 183 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 183 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 8Amount 8
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 183 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: Prop House is great, but we kicked the value accrual can down the road during the 1000 ETH proposal discussion process.   Not interested in kicking it again.
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 142
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 142 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 142 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 29Amount 29
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 142 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: This seems like a worthy activity but for scalability reasons, I believe the DAO should encourage proposals below 20 ETH to seek funding via Prop House
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 141
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 141 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 141 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 30Amount 30
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 141 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: open to voting yes for a future version of this proposal. A willingness to reduce/modify the scope has been expressed, but I think its bad practice to approve proposals that explicitly state goals that will not be completed.  A secondary reason for the no vote is to give those who have aesthetic feedback an opportunity to share it.
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 134
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 134 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 134 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 31Amount 31
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 134 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: would support halving the proposal threshold again, with 1 year runway rather than 26
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 94
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 94 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 94 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 28Amount 28
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 94 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: while this is a fun project with a passionate creator my personal view is I that its too far away from our core mission
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 89
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 89 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 89 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 39Amount 39
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 89 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: support pursuing an engagement with this artist with less time constraints and longer mural lifetime
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 58
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 58 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 58 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 11Amount 11
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 58 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: happy to revisit in the future, but do not believe the additional delay is necessary at this stage
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 318
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 318 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 318 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 316
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 316 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 316 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 315
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 315 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 315 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 312
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 312 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 312 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 310
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 310 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 310 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 307
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 307 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 307 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 306
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 306 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 306 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 303
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 303 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 303 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 301
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 301 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 301 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 308
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 308 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 308 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 300
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 300 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 300 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 323
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 323 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 323 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 322
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 322 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 322 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Opposed @@
+Proposal 319
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 319 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Opposed: Proposal 319 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 280
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 280 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 280 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 280 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: if 40 addresses vote on this proposal at this weeks average gas price, it will cost the DAO $600 in gas rebates. There are 10 proposals this week.
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 261
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 261 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 261 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 261 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: we spent a lot of time building and testing dynamic quorum, but it hasnt impacted any proposals. Incrementally increasing the maximum quorum allows it to work as intended imo.
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 238
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 238 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 238 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 238 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: voting yes because of the generalized NFT distribution contracts, not because of self referential proposals
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 155
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 155 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 155 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 32Amount 32
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 155 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: gm beautifulnfts.eth how are you today?
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 143
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 143 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 143 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 29Amount 29
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 143 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: support this experiment, but only plan to support renewal if this generates meaningful impressions/views, even though I expect content to be high quality regardless.
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 95
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 95 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 95 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 29Amount 29
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 95 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: slam dunk!
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 93
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 93 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 93 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 28Amount 28
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 93 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: almost forgot to vote because have been so busy trying not to get rekt
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 90
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 90 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 90 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 41Amount 41
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 90 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: start working now plz
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 87
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 87 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 87 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 41Amount 41
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 87 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: we object to the last minute modification of this proposal effectively doubling costs by making financing dilutive rather than accretive.  that said we believe vectorDAO to be a value add partner and are excited to have them as a part of the community.  Given time constraints for this event, we choose to give VectorDAO the benefit of the doubt that they will find a way to add more value in the future, and will be vetting future proposals from them with that in mind.
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 84
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 84 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 84 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 42Amount 42
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 84 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: ☕️
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 77
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 77 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 77 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 43Amount 43
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 77 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: like the construct of upfront payment + revokable stream
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 63
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 63 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 63 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 15Amount 15
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 63 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: I will be judging the success or failure of this pilot based on how efficient it is at allocating money - both ROI and time expended
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 61
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 61 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 61 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 14Amount 14
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 61 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: we like the cdt
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 54
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 54 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 54 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 6Amount 6
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 54 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: 👨🏻‍💻
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 317
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 317 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 317 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 314
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 314 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 314 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 313
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 313 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 313 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 311
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 311 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 311 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 302
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 302 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 302 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 321
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 321 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 321 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 320
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 320 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 320 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Supported @@
+Proposal 328
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 328 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Supported: Proposal 328 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Abstained @@
+Proposal 86
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 86 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 86 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 43Amount 43
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 86 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: 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.
@@ Property / Abstained @@
+Proposal 57
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 57 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 57 / qualifier @@
+Vote Weight: 7Amount 7
Unit 1
 Amount
 Unit
@@ Property / Abstained: Proposal 57 / qualifier @@
+Vote Reason: I support the ETH requested, but believe that proposals should be solely comprised of state changes.   If a Noun is being granted, it should be transferred by this proposal.   If a Noun is deemed a worthy retroactive reward, that decision should be made at the appropriate time, not within the context of the initial proposal.
@@ Property / Proposed @@
+Proposal 140
@@ Property / Proposed: Proposal 140 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Proposed @@
+Proposal 313
@@ Property / Proposed: Proposal 313 / rank @@
+Normal rank
@@ Property / Proposed @@
+Proposal 331
@@ Property / Proposed: Proposal 331 / rank @@
+Normal rank

Latest revision as of 23:48, 17 July 2023

Individual

Language	Label	Description	Also known as
English	0x4754b7e3dede42d71d6c92978f25f306176ec7e9	Individual

Statements

0 references

7

0 references

Proposal 298

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 297

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 295

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 290

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 286

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 285

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 283

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 282

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 281

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 277

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 276

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 273

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 271

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 269

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 266

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 265

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 264

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 263

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 260

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 258

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 256

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 255

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 253

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 252

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 251

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 246

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 242

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 241

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 239

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 232

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 228

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 223

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 222

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 219

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 218

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 215

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 206

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 204

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 203

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 201

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 198

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 197

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 196

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 193

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 191

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 186

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 182

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 177

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 176

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 175

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 170

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 165

Vote Weight

32

0 references

Proposal 146

Vote Weight

28

0 references

Proposal 144

Vote Weight

29

0 references

Proposal 136

Vote Weight

31

0 references

Proposal 133

Vote Weight

28

0 references

Proposal 130

Vote Weight

29

0 references

Proposal 121

Vote Weight

24

0 references

Proposal 120

Vote Weight

24

0 references

Proposal 104

Vote Weight

28

0 references

Proposal 78

Vote Weight

42

0 references

Proposal 74

Vote Weight

36

0 references

Proposal 59

Vote Weight

11

0 references

Proposal 55

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 50

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 289

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

when I voted yes on the last nounish proposal, I gave the following reason: I support this experiment, but only plan to support renewal if this generates meaningful impressions/views, even though I expect content to be high quality regardless I appreciate the high quality content as well as Goldy and team being open to feedback, but even in the optimistic case I dont see a path to getting distribution to where it needs to be to justify the expense.

0 references

Proposal 279

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

would support a revised proposal

0 references

Proposal 278

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

charitable giving is more efficient at the personal level

0 references

Proposal 189

Vote Weight

8

Vote Reason

agree w/ noun 12 reasoning

0 references

Proposal 183

Vote Weight

8

Vote Reason

Prop House is great, but we kicked the value accrual can down the road during the 1000 ETH proposal discussion process. Not interested in kicking it again.

0 references

Proposal 142

Vote Weight

29

Vote Reason

This seems like a worthy activity but for scalability reasons, I believe the DAO should encourage proposals below 20 ETH to seek funding via Prop House

0 references

Proposal 141

Vote Weight

30

Vote Reason

open to voting yes for a future version of this proposal. A willingness to reduce/modify the scope has been expressed, but I think its bad practice to approve proposals that explicitly state goals that will not be completed. A secondary reason for the no vote is to give those who have aesthetic feedback an opportunity to share it.

0 references

Proposal 134

Vote Weight

31

Vote Reason

would support halving the proposal threshold again, with 1 year runway rather than 26

0 references

Proposal 94

Vote Weight

28

Vote Reason

while this is a fun project with a passionate creator my personal view is I that its too far away from our core mission

0 references

Proposal 89

Vote Weight

39

Vote Reason

support pursuing an engagement with this artist with less time constraints and longer mural lifetime

0 references

Proposal 58

Vote Weight

11

Vote Reason

happy to revisit in the future, but do not believe the additional delay is necessary at this stage

0 references

Proposal 318

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 316

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 315

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 312

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 310

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 307

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 306

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 303

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 301

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 308

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 300

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 323

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 322

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 319

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Supported

Proposal 288

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 287

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 274

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 272

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 268

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 259

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 257

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 254

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 250

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 245

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 244

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 233

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 229

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 227

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 224

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 221

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 217

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 216

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 208

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 207

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 205

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 199

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 195

Vote Weight

9

0 references

Proposal 192

Vote Weight

8

0 references

Proposal 167

Vote Weight

32

0 references

Proposal 166

Vote Weight

32

0 references

Proposal 164

Vote Weight

32

0 references

Proposal 162

Vote Weight

33

0 references

Proposal 161

Vote Weight

33

0 references

Proposal 156

Vote Weight

32

0 references

Proposal 152

Vote Weight

31

0 references

Proposal 151

Vote Weight

30

0 references

Proposal 150

Vote Weight

30

0 references

Proposal 147

Vote Weight

28

0 references

Proposal 145

Vote Weight

29

0 references

Proposal 138

Vote Weight

29

0 references

Proposal 137

Vote Weight

31

0 references

Proposal 135

Vote Weight

31

0 references

Proposal 126

Vote Weight

27

0 references

Proposal 119

Vote Weight

24

0 references

Proposal 112

Vote Weight

23

0 references

Proposal 111

Vote Weight

25

0 references

Proposal 110

Vote Weight

25

0 references

Proposal 108

Vote Weight

26

0 references

Proposal 107

Vote Weight

25

0 references

Proposal 106

Vote Weight

24

0 references

Proposal 105

Vote Weight

23

0 references

Proposal 103

Vote Weight

28

0 references

Proposal 92

Vote Weight

41

0 references

Proposal 91

Vote Weight

41

0 references

Proposal 85

Vote Weight

42

0 references

Proposal 83

Vote Weight

42

0 references

Proposal 82

Vote Weight

42

0 references

Proposal 81

Vote Weight

42

0 references

Proposal 75

Vote Weight

37

0 references

Proposal 73

Vote Weight

36

0 references

Proposal 67

Vote Weight

16

0 references

Proposal 65

Vote Weight

16

0 references

Proposal 64

Vote Weight

16

0 references

Proposal 56

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 53

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 52

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 51

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 49

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 47

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 46

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 45

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 44

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 38

Vote Weight

6

0 references

Proposal 37

Vote Weight

4

0 references

Proposal 33

Vote Weight

5

0 references

Proposal 30

Vote Weight

4

0 references

Proposal 29

Vote Weight

2

0 references

Proposal 280

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

if 40 addresses vote on this proposal at this weeks average gas price, it will cost the DAO $600 in gas rebates. There are 10 proposals this week.

0 references

Proposal 261

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

we spent a lot of time building and testing dynamic quorum, but it hasnt impacted any proposals. Incrementally increasing the maximum quorum allows it to work as intended imo.

0 references

Proposal 238

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

voting yes because of the generalized NFT distribution contracts, not because of self referential proposals

0 references

Proposal 155

Vote Weight

32

Vote Reason

gm beautifulnfts.eth how are you today?

0 references

Proposal 143

Vote Weight

29

Vote Reason

support this experiment, but only plan to support renewal if this generates meaningful impressions/views, even though I expect content to be high quality regardless.

0 references

Proposal 95

Vote Weight

29

Vote Reason

slam dunk!

0 references

Proposal 93

Vote Weight

28

Vote Reason

almost forgot to vote because have been so busy trying not to get rekt

0 references

Proposal 90

Vote Weight

41

Vote Reason

start working now plz

0 references

Proposal 87

Vote Weight

41

Vote Reason

we object to the last minute modification of this proposal effectively doubling costs by making financing dilutive rather than accretive. that said we believe vectorDAO to be a value add partner and are excited to have them as a part of the community. Given time constraints for this event, we choose to give VectorDAO the benefit of the doubt that they will find a way to add more value in the future, and will be vetting future proposals from them with that in mind.

0 references

Proposal 84

Vote Weight

42

Vote Reason

☕️

0 references

Proposal 77

Vote Weight

43

Vote Reason

like the construct of upfront payment + revokable stream

0 references

Proposal 63

Vote Weight

15

Vote Reason

I will be judging the success or failure of this pilot based on how efficient it is at allocating money - both ROI and time expended

0 references

Proposal 61

Vote Weight

14

Vote Reason

we like the cdt

0 references

Proposal 54

Vote Weight

6

Vote Reason

👨🏻‍💻

0 references

Proposal 317

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 314

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 313

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 311

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 302

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 321

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 320

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Proposal 328

Vote Weight

7

0 references

Abstained

Proposal 72

Vote Weight

32

0 references

Proposal 86

Vote Weight

43

Vote Reason

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

Proposal 57

Vote Weight

7

Vote Reason

I support the ETH requested, but believe that proposals should be solely comprised of state changes. If a Noun is being granted, it should be transferred by this proposal. If a Noun is deemed a worthy retroactive reward, that decision should be made at the appropriate time, not within the context of the initial proposal.

0 references

0 references

0 references

0 references

0 references

0 references