Proposal 1 (Q1952): Difference between revisions
From Nouns Dev
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
||
| Property / Question & Answer | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: Henlo Nounish Folk!--We have 100 ETH for people building in the Nouniverse, as per Prop 63 - https://nouns.wtf/vote/63. We have compiled a huge list of people, once it's finalized we will hold a large coordinape round with those nominated and disperse the 100 ETH accordingly.--**BIG LIST OF NOMINEES**-https://nouncil.notion.site/nouncil/e52614f01e56475aa710d716ee8c69b7?v=6d1fe0cff7b645b5ab551c629cf02b16--See yourself on that list? If you have information to add please submit it to us using this form: --**PROP 63 NOMINEE DETAILS FORM - SUBMIT**-https://www.addressform.io/form/ff77863b-f160-4d63-b70e-1ed986a8da07--We need Discord / twitter usernames, wallet addresses, and short & sweet summaries of Nounish contributions. You can also post small updates to <#970759473624940564>. --Dont see yourself on the list? Let us know about your contribution and we will add you.--Nominations and Form Edits will be accepted up until end-of-day July 31. We will manually confirm wallet addresses with Nominees after that by private DM, and then move forward with the Coordinape. / rank | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: Henlo Nounish Folk!--We have 100 ETH for people building in the Nouniverse, as per Prop 63 - https://nouns.wtf/vote/63. We have compiled a huge list of people, once it's finalized we will hold a large coordinape round with those nominated and disperse the 100 ETH accordingly.--**BIG LIST OF NOMINEES**-https://nouncil.notion.site/nouncil/e52614f01e56475aa710d716ee8c69b7?v=6d1fe0cff7b645b5ab551c629cf02b16--See yourself on that list? If you have information to add please submit it to us using this form: --**PROP 63 NOMINEE DETAILS FORM - SUBMIT**-https://www.addressform.io/form/ff77863b-f160-4d63-b70e-1ed986a8da07--We need Discord / twitter usernames, wallet addresses, and short & sweet summaries of Nounish contributions. You can also post small updates to <#970759473624940564>. --Dont see yourself on the list? Let us know about your contribution and we will add you.--Nominations and Form Edits will be accepted up until end-of-day July 31. We will manually confirm wallet addresses with Nominees after that by private DM, and then move forward with the Coordinape. / qualifier | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: Henlo Nounish Folk!--We have 100 ETH for people building in the Nouniverse, as per Prop 63 - https://nouns.wtf/vote/63. We have compiled a huge list of people, once it's finalized we will hold a large coordinape round with those nominated and disperse the 100 ETH accordingly.--**BIG LIST OF NOMINEES**-https://nouncil.notion.site/nouncil/e52614f01e56475aa710d716ee8c69b7?v=6d1fe0cff7b645b5ab551c629cf02b16--See yourself on that list? If you have information to add please submit it to us using this form: --**PROP 63 NOMINEE DETAILS FORM - SUBMIT**-https://www.addressform.io/form/ff77863b-f160-4d63-b70e-1ed986a8da07--We need Discord / twitter usernames, wallet addresses, and short & sweet summaries of Nounish contributions. You can also post small updates to <#970759473624940564>. --Dont see yourself on the list? Let us know about your contribution and we will add you.--Nominations and Form Edits will be accepted up until end-of-day July 31. We will manually confirm wallet addresses with Nominees after that by private DM, and then move forward with the Coordinape. / qualifier | |||
| Property / Question & Answer | |||
sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h / qualifier | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h / qualifier | |||
Answer: The question asked was about various aspects of the nomination and voting process for the Nouns DAO impact rewards. The conversation provided some thoughts and opinions on these aspects, but no definitive answers were given. The conversation mainly served as a starting point for further discussion and planning. | |||
Revision as of 00:19, 15 July 2023
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 1 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
Donate 5 ETH each to 6 Charities
0 references
1
0 references
1
0 references
19 August 2021
0 references
Donate 5 ETH each to 6 Charities --- --- *Past Discussions* --- - [Original proposal with emoji consensus]( --- - [SharkDAO adds Coral Restoration Foundation]( --- - [4156 adds GiveCrypto]( --- --- As the first test of Nouns DAO governance and to demonstrate to the community how the ecosystem works, we will donate 5 ETH each to 6 charities. With the exception of Coral Restoration Foundation and GiveCrypto, these charities were chosen because they have publicly available Ethereum donation addresses. --- Coral Restoration Foundation was recommended by SharkDAO and their representative Goldy.mov generated an address on the charity's site. GiveCrypto was recommended by 4156 and he generated an address on the charity's site. --- --- Charity List --- *The order of the charities below matches the order of addresses in this proposal's `targets` attribute* --- 1. [Coral Restoration Foundation]( --- - 0x0e09cEb98492715ec5B080d2b95B5004ddF43947 (Generated by Goldy.mov) --- 2. [Freedom Of The Press Foundation]( --- - 0x998F25Be40241CA5D8F5fCaF3591B5ED06EF3Be7 --- 3. [Internet Archive]( --- - 0xFA8E3920daF271daB92Be9B87d9998DDd94FEF08 --- 4. [Rainforest Foundation US]( --- - 0x54334Ebc8c9ef04bc28D614Caa557143ED8AfC87 --- 5. [Tor Project]( --- - 0x532Fb5D00f40ced99B16d1E295C77Cda2Eb1BB4F --- 6.
0 references
7
0 references
Nouns dao
0 references
19 August 2021
0 references
0
0 references
1
0 references
5
0 references
5
0 references
0
0 references
sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h
The question asked was about various aspects of the nomination and voting process for the Nouns DAO impact rewards. The conversation provided some thoughts and opinions on these aspects, but no definitive answers were given. The conversation mainly served as a starting point for further discussion and planning.
0 references
