Proposal 210 (Q2877)
From Nouns Dev
Proposal
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 210 |
Proposal |
Statements
210
0 references
32
0 references
15 January 2023
0 references
86
0 references
Redirect 10% of future Lil Noun emissions to Lil Treasury
0 references
176
0 references
28
No reason to do this.
0 references
No need to give up this source of revenue with no clear upside.
0 references
16
i think its beneficial for both projects if the reward continues as specified at the outset of lilnouns
0 references
We dont need to cut Nouns reward entirely to achieve our goal of getting more lil noun tokens to use as comp to fund builders/proliferators. Voting no and hoping to get a new prop up to specifically request lil noun tokens the DAO already holds instead of cutting the reward completely.
0 references
I would be supportive of using some percentage of our lil nouns treasury to support lil nouns builders (for example 10% of our holding would be ~70 lil nouns), but ending the emissions entirely feels a bit abrupt and Im not sure if its something that has broad support from the lil nouns community? (proplot signaling feels somewhat weak for a prop of this magnitude). If a formal onchain vote had passed on lil nouns dao to put this prop up then I would definitely have considered more strongly.
0 references
Hopeful we can find better alternatives
0 references
I generally support using some of the lil nouns in our treasury to help the lils! We have not demonstrated any intent to use or sell them, so to the extent where they can help lils proliferate the meme. id be all for it! However, totally severing the relationship with Nouns doesnt seem like the right way to do this.
0 references
12
**Prop 210: NO WINS** 18 Yes, 22 No, 3 Abstain 9 Nouncillors abstained from the decision --- **Vote Reasons & Discussion** --- **lilpizza.eth** | *Nouns is not using these tokens and doesnt seem to currently have plans to participate in Lil Nouns governance. This would be a huge benefit for Lil Nouns as it would allow the DAO to be more self-sustaining by rewarding contributors with these tokens.* **Classic_Craig** | *Im fond of Lil Nouns and if this allows them to do giveaways and other building things, Im for it!* **vsvsvs** | *This is the beginning of something dangerous...* **Mach** | *sure if thats what they want* **.ZllW ⌐◨-◨** | *A complete sever of r/s between Lil Nouns and Nouns is not ideal; would like to see a re-proposal where Lil Nouns request for 10% of the Lil Nouns currently in Nouns Treasury to help fund/reward Lil builders instead* **RyanMac ⌐◨-◨** | *After reading the prop 210 discord channel in the Jungle & feedback from Nouners: this looks like death by suicide for lil nouns with the DAO* **0xDariush** | *Nouns should keep increasing their lils during the time and also start using their vote powers to help lils to move better.* **Mindtoasted** | *I vote no in this, I just dont find a good reason for this.* --- For more Nouns DAO proposal discussion head to the Nouncil Discord: https://discord.gg/nouncil
0 references
11
We are now on DAY 5 of Jacob-gate. Why was Jacob removed as a Lil Nounder this month, but still has a vote and is collecting rewards on their multi-sig?
0 references
Redirect 10% of future Lil Noun emissions to Lil Treasury tl:dr This proposal requests that NounsDAO redirect 10% of future Lil Nouns emissions. Description This proposal requests that NounsDAO redirect 10% of future Lil Nouns emissions. There will be no change to the DAOs current Lil Noun holdings. The ~722 Lil Nouns currently held by Nouns will remain in the Nouns treasury. These emissions will be redirected to the Lil Nouns treasury, where they can be used as grants to community builders, or for other initiatives at Lil Nouns DAOs discretion.
0 references
15 January 2023
0 references
But in all seriousness ... Lil Nouns is now the springboard into Nouns ecosystem... We literally are graduating people up to Nouns all the time, or around through the community... --Would Nouns rather we ask for 100E and not 100E in Lil Nouns so our builders can keep building for Nouns? .... its a small ask for NounsDAO but would equal 1/3 of our current treasury and have a big impact on our DAO.. Maybe even keep some of our builders engaged and working for tokens (yes yes, hard to believe but we do bits of work for 1 lil noun, over here 🤦♂️ lmao)...
This proposal is asking for 10% of future Lil Nouns mints (maybe 200 Lils over the next year at current mint rates). The conversation suggests that there is a desire for the two communities (Nouns and Lil Nouns) to work together more closely, and having Nouns own a percentage of Lil Nouns could provide an economic incentive for that connection.
0 references
Does it not just concentrate lil voting even further?
It is not clear whether the concentration of lil voting would increase or not based on the provided conversation context.
0 references
every 10th goes to lilnounders.eth?
Every 10th Noun does not go to lilnounders.eth. Instead, 10% of the Lil Nouns emissions go to the founders, not the treasury controlled by the DAO.
0 references
Fair enough. Do you think the 700+ lils that nouns owns now is enough of an economic signal that they are connected? This prop in question wouldn’t change those holdings.
There is no direct answer to the question about whether the 700+ lils that nouns own now is enough of an economic signal that they are connected. However, the conversation suggests that some community members believe that the 10% ownership of Lil Nouns by Nouns DAO is a significant social signal that the two communities are intertwined and should continue.
0 references
feels like because of the way prop lot works, this prop went on-chain hastily, to its own detriment — hopefully not to the detriment of the perception of lils. i doubt it passes because it's not clear what nouns are receiving in this prop.--that said, if lil nouns wants more lil nfts to distribute to builders in their ecosystem (and the nouns ecosystem by proxy), it's beneficial to nouns to find a middleground that works for both ecosystems.--with lils, you can get nounish NFTs (and a vote!) in the hands of people who are contributing to the ecosystem for a low cost.--it has always been surprising to me that nouns voters are contentious about giving a noun as part of proposals (to builders they support & are voting for). but it's understandable, because it's such a high $$ asset. but distributing some lils that are sitting dormant in the nouns treasury can bridge that gap, just a bit.--why wouldn't nouns want to incentivize people building in the ecosystem beyond just ETH?--now... does it make sense for nouns to give up the 10% forever? to me, definitely not. and as has been said in here previously, i also think there will be consequences for lils if the 10% is redirected away from nouns.
There is no clear answer to the question in the provided conversation context.
0 references
How tho? im trying to understand how we would be affected... and what support we'd lose. fwiw i changed my vote... but i just dont get it. We've pumped 939E into Nouns treasury
The conversation discusses the potential impact of redirecting 10% of future Lil Noun emissions to the Lil Treasury instead of the Nouns Treasury. Some participants believe that this proposal could negatively affect the relationship between Nouns DAO and Lil Nouns DAO, while others think it might not have a significant impact. However, there is no clear consensus on how the Nouns DAO would be affected or what support they would lose.
0 references
I don’t understand how nouns owning lils that they do nothing with implies a necessary connection? The two can still be connected and have a harmonious relationship without this transactional element that’s honestly shaping up to feel a bit weird.--Would you say gnars is less connected to nouns bc they’re not providing any tokens to nouns?--If the big concern is severing the relationship between the two DAOs I think it’s still extremely possible to have good standing between the two without lil nouns paying a “tax”
There isn't a direct answer to the question in the provided conversation. However, the discussion revolves around the relationship between Nouns and Lil Nouns, and whether a transactional element is necessary for maintaining a harmonious connection between the two DAOs. Some participants argue that the economic incentive of Nouns owning a percentage of Lil Nouns helps maintain a close relationship, while others question the support provided by Nouns to Lil Nouns.
0 references
If you look at the concentration of lil nouns votes you can see that this is just voting theatre though right?
The concentration of lil nouns votes may make it seem like voting theatre, but it's not necessarily indicative of bad intent. The goal is to give lil nouns tokens to the lils dao to distribute to builders as compensation. The process involves passing on-chain proposals to get the tokens out of the lil nouns dao treasury.
0 references
I kind of wonder if a prop of this magnitude should have been voted onchain by lilnouns before proposing onchain to nouns dao?
The process for voting on proposals in the Lil Nouns DAO involves using Prop Lot to vote on ideas before they are proposed on-chain to the Nouns DAO. If a Prop Lot gets over 5% support, it goes on-chain. The Lil Nouns tokens would go to the Lil Nouns DAO treasury directly, and on-chain proposals would need to be passed to distribute them. The current process is still new and open to change.
0 references
i mean, i’m not here to say how other daos should run gov but a informal signaling mechanism pushing an idea of this magnitude to nouns feels a bit abrupt. it’s a real change to the lil noun protocol’s intended design and should get a proper on chain vote so at least it gets full exposure and attention from that community no?
It is not believed that the proposal would circumvent the lil nouns proposal process. If approved at the nouns level, it would likely have to go through another lil nouns proposal to officially change the emissions. The current process involves passing a prop lot quorum, and then multisig signers put up proposals after they pass.
0 references
is that actual 739 lil noun votes?
Yes, if a prop lot gets over 5%, it goes on chain. About 350 or so lil nouns votes on any idea goes on chain in nouns. The process is still pretty new and open to change.
0 references
lol... what about the other 90% of people without this eth, youve never suggested Lil Nouns?
Lil Nouns DAO has not directly requested ETH or Lil Nouns from Nouns DAO before. The proposal to redirect 10% of future Lil Noun emissions to the Lil Treasury is being discussed, but it is not clear what Nouns DAO would receive in return. Some members believe that finding a middle ground that benefits both ecosystems would be more beneficial. However, the proposal's outcome is uncertain, and it is not guaranteed to pass.
0 references
putting this here, because i know most of you aren't in lil nouns discord:--#1. Nouns would have to operate for 20 years to give away the number of tokens we have.--#2. Gnars gives zero reward and has been funded with 69E and almost got funded for 690E .. 🤯--#3. Lil Nouns has received.... how much from Nouns? 2E for deployment costs?--#4. Nouns needs us as the more affordable model- 99% of people that have sticker shock when going to Noun.wtf and are priced out. IMO, we've been the solution to your growth problem.--#5. We've given Nouns 100E in value through our tokens and bought 15 Nouns.--So again I ask, what support do we get?.. We cant even get more lil's into the Nouner private chats.
Nouns has provided support to Lil Nouns in various ways, such as deployment funding, initial support from Nouners, and the fact that Lil Nouns can exist because they bear the likeness of Nouns. However, there is a debate about whether Nouns should own 10% of Lil Nouns and whether this economic incentive affects the relationship between the two DAOs. Some argue that the 10% ownership is a significant social signal that the two communities are intertwined, while others believe that the two communities can still have a harmonious relationship without this transactional element.
0 references
question about this; How do/have we gotten support from Nouns? You mean through buying our tokens? or another way? --Sub-daos (like Gnars) who don't give tokens to Nouns has benefited more through funding.. right? --Has lil nouns ever received funded from Nouns beyond like 2E for deployment costs? (i think thats what we got originally).--Just trying to clarify, in case im missing some context.
Nouns has supported Lil Nouns through the initial deployment funding and the initial support many Nouners gave the project. Lil Nouns can only exist because they bear the likeness of Nouns. However, it seems that Lil Nouns has not received funding from Nouns beyond the 2E for deployment costs.
0 references
So about 350 or so lil nouns votes on any idea goes on chain in nouns?
Yes, about 350 or so lil nouns votes on any idea goes on chain in nouns.
0 references
tbf I don't think lil would even be able to change this mechanism without approving an on-chain proposal to make the change. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think there's one person who can just make that change. It would have to be done on-chain via a proposal.--The purpose of putting this on-chain to nouns first was get a temp check if that would be cool with the folks over at nouns. I don't think this is circumventing the lil nouns proposal process as much as you might think it is.--Assuming this gets approved at the nouns level, I think it would have to go through another lil nouns proposal to officially change the emissions.--I'm not sure what folks at Nouns would have liked to have seen from lil nouns on-chain before this. What sort of proposal would have made sense? Voting on actually stopping the emissions isn't the right move, because then theres no ask for permission from nouns.--(could be wrong about this btw, I don't fully understand how these mechanisms work)
If the proposal to redirect 10% of future Lil Noun emissions to the Lil Treasury gets approved at the Nouns level, there would be no need for a follow-up Lil Nouns proposal. The proposal itself serves as the mechanism for the change.
0 references
this might be a low wit idea, but could auction their vote for income lol?
Selling votes has been discussed in private conversations, but some members are highly against it, including via Agora.
0 references
What are those Lil Nouns worth to us in the treasury? We're never going to bulk sell them, or vote in their governance. Maybe we can divvy them up to Nouners and let everyone decide themselves what to do. However, that can have its own ugly future implications (although I would mind a free airdrop of 1.95E and blowing it on some sports bets on SX.bet).--The only interesting thing that we should consider doing is auto dumping future Lil Noun emissions on the secondary market or NFTX and having that ETH go straight to our treasury.
There is no consensus on what the Lil Nouns are worth to the treasury, and various ideas have been discussed, such as auctioning their votes for income or distributing them to Nouners. However, there is no clear answer or agreement on the best course of action.
0 references
what do you think of prop 212? Seems to undermine much of the above about wanting financial stake.
Prop 212 was seen as undermining the financial stake between Nouns and Lil Nouns. Noun 22#2222 believes that Lil Nouns giving Nouns a 10% reward was a smart move that led to special treatment and support from Nouners, contributing to Lil Nouns' success. Reducing or breaking that exposure could be a bad idea for Lil Nouns, as it might change the way Nouners treat and support them.
0 references
Who is the determining party on who gets the lil nouns?
The determining party on who gets the lil nouns would be the Lil Nouns DAO treasury. To distribute the lil nouns, on-chain proposals would need to be passed.
0 references
Who submitted the prop? Will?
Yes, Will submitted the proposal on proplot.
0 references
Why can't he just vote himself? He's too busy to read the props or has he become disinterested?
He's a founder and has a lot of responsibilities, limiting his availability. Delegating his votes could be a sign that he genuinely cares about the project. It doesn't necessarily mean he's disinterested in Nouns.
0 references
Why hasn't lil used their own emissions to fund builders? (Since that seems to be the goal of requesting future emissions from nouns)
The treasury doesn't receive emissions, and the 10% goes to the founders, not the treasury controlled by the DAO. The proposal to redirect 10% of future Lil Noun emissions to the Lil Treasury was an attempt to get more Lil Nouns in their hands to distribute to builders. However, there is a suggestion to request some Lil Nouns directly instead of cutting the reward.
0 references
Wow, I just noticed that Patricio (poap.eth) delegated you 23 VOTES and of course you used them to vote against 210. What a surprise! When did this happen?--Will had Patricio remove his delegated votes in June 2022, but he keeps finding people to take over that role. If you vote against his wishes, will he threaten to remove the delegation from you?
Patricio delegated 23 votes to Noun 12 in early December. Noun 12 has been using the delegation to fund projects and push the DAO forward, voting based on their own judgment and what they believe is best for the DAO. Patricio has not asked Noun 12 to do anything specific, and Noun 12 is committed to putting the DAO first, regardless of who delegates or undelegates votes to them.
0 references
ya wasn't that the point of requesting from nouns? Because we wanted to have lil nouns to use to reward builders?
Yes, the point of requesting from Nouns was to have lil nouns to use to reward builders. However, the proposal being discussed is considered an extreme scenario to accomplish the need for getting lil noun tokens. It is suggested to request a portion of Nouns DAO's holding instead of cutting the reward.
0 references
hard to say why he didn't see it specifically. maybe i can post announcements when props pass on prop lot?
0 references
Nobody is impossible to bribe (whether it's done with a carrot or a stick) - it's just a matter of deep research.--I didn't have to vote on every prop because at one point I genuinely felt that the collective wisdom of the group would *most of the time* make the right choices. Unfortunately we have seen so much selfish behavior from some Nouners and definitely NOT ENOUGH brave Nouners to speak up about it PUBLICLY.--There's no denying that his 'brand' took a hit after his ultra aggressive bidding practices. Yes yes, of course bidding is permissionless BUT that doesn't mean it didn't do harm to us collectively. In various discords, whenever someone discussed Nouns it was followed up with 'whats the poap floor price on Nouns these days'? Or rumors of price manipulation among owners. Who do you think had to constantly defend the project from that sort of rhetoric? Actions have consequences.
0 references
ughh I think this prop is it? or at least that’s my understanding. no followup lil nouns prop needed
0 references
1
0 references
3
0 references
Lil nouns dao
0 references
