(Q391)
Statements
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
charitable giving is more efficient at the personal level
0 references
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
29
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
30
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
31
would support halving the proposal threshold again, with 1 year runway rather than 26
0 references
28
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
39
support pursuing an engagement with this artist with less time constraints and longer mural lifetime
0 references
11
happy to revisit in the future, but do not believe the additional delay is necessary at this stage
0 references
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
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
voting yes because of the generalized NFT distribution contracts, not because of self referential proposals
0 references
29
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
28
almost forgot to vote because have been so busy trying not to get rekt
0 references
41
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
43
like the construct of upfront payment + revokable stream
0 references
15
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
43
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
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