Proposal 134 (Q1938)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 134 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
29
0 references
Liberating Proposal Threshold for 26 years
0 references
42
0 references
31 August 2022
0 references
134
0 references
123
0 references
31
would support halving the proposal threshold again, with 1 year runway rather than 26
0 references
Easy, ready, willin’, overtime Where does it stop? Where do you dare me To draw the line? Youve got the body Now you want my soul Dont even think about it Say, “No go”
0 references
im fully in favor of lowering the threshold but feel this proposal is too drastic. id prefer to revisit the topic in another year or so to re-evaluate. id vote for an alternate proposal requiring 0.1% of the noun supply to make proposals (i.e. 1 noun required until noun 1000)
0 references
Bc every nouner should be able to put up a prop.
0 references
i feel strongly about supporting this. seems like the 26 year time period is throwing people off. it can be changed via another proposal but I see this as a default safeguard against centralizing power into the hands of only those who own or are delegated many nouns. right now there shouldnt be any difference in power (besides # of votes) between those with 1 noun and those with many nouns. anyone with a noun should be able to submit a proposal to the DAO. And we can assume (at this point) anyone putting up the capital to buy a noun will come with a thoughtful proposal. If one nouners are required to find someone else to co-sign a proposal then theres not much difference between having a noun and not having a noun. If we wanted to change the threshold at a later date it would require thoughtful consideration and discussion, rather than continuing to kick the can down the road and lowering the threshold every few months.
0 references
13
When I look at the votes FOR on this proposal, I see a lot of new Nouners, who undoubtedly feel disenfranchised by the recent 100% jump in Nouns required for proposal submission. I think the 26 years piece muddied the waters on this proposal unnecessarily, but ultimately the threshold could be raised at any point in the future and I feel like solving this problem later, when the problem actually exists, makes more sense to me than the inverse. If this proposal should fail, hopefully an alternative for a shorter period of time will be more palatable to the DAO.
0 references
I think we should make a threshold an opt-in and not an opt out. We are having a system which makes noun holders unequal and creates a class. Those who can propose and those who cant.
0 references
Noun 401 mixed at random with 999 exact forgeries. 🔓. gentle 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔓. maple 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ 🔒. _____ https://forgeries.wtf
0 references
Liberating Proposal Threshold for 26 years Change the threshold to put a proposal on-chain from the current 2 votes to 1 vote. Why: - We are disenfranchising roughly 80% of noun holders currently. - We are not seeing many proposals coming in. - We want to empower any nouner or delegate to participate in the DAO. Setting the proposal threshold to 1 would require 2 votes again once we passed 9999 nouns in roughly 26 years.
0 references
The team name is not provided in the given text
0 references
31 August 2022
0 references
dont have an opinion here
0 references
