Proposal 248 (Q135)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 248 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
95
0 references
Rage Quit (2)
0 references
248
0 references
38
No. Bad process and destructive approach, not helpful.
0 references
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 241, which is 5 for, 18 against and 0 abstain, we choose to vote against. The proposals opinion is clear, and we do not recommend taking Rage Quit immediately. Its not just an issue with the content of the proposal itself, but also the caution regarding the level of the proposal. Our opposing viewpoints: 1. Refuse to change the constitutional-level rules of the DAO without evidence that Rage Quit is effective (MolochDAO rarely uses Rage Quit) or sufficient community debate. Proposals of this level require lengthy debate, repeated proposals and opposition, and then approval. Changing the underlying rules lightly is irresponsible to the consensus. It is normal for a system to have human flaws at every level. However, a casual attitude towards underlying rules could destroy the Nouns system, a stable system is better than no system. 2. NounsDAO already has a secondary market exit method. Rage Quit is a term that appears powerful on the surface, but in essence, it is a bad price market-making way. It does not have the game-theoretical effect it promises. 3. The importance behind Rage Quit is not angry, but forking. The execution of this proposal did not enhance the system or generate more viable branches, but resulted in a loss of consensus, which is negative on the margin. Instead, leaving feedback for continuous improvement of the system can turn it into a way to enhance the system. The efficiency of Nouns proposal supervision has also been improving and will continue to progress. 4. The proposal implies that everyone is angry, which is a language game. The fact is that most users have a mixed feeling of disappointment and hope. Any one-sided release of hope or anger will damage a system. 5. Earlier proposal 192 had a more comprehensive rage quit design called theDAO Split mechanism/design. The proposer, Verbs team, pointed out that although it is still under discussion with legal counsel, they believe it is the best solution for Nouns. They are now soliciti
0 references
Wrong kind of ugly.
0 references
More thought needs to be put into the Split mechanic and the Verbs design is a better starting point.
0 references
Split mechanic should be a mean to protect the DAO/Nouner from a attack, not a channel for refund
0 references
This is the worst prop that has ever been proposed.
0 references
Reasons given in my newsletter: https://paragraph.xyz/@thebower/active-governance-noun-582-4
0 references
We are voting against this because this is not well-thought out and has several key errors such as hardcoding book value. We should not send 3000 ETH to an unaudited contract
0 references
Alana here, from Variant. We’ve decided to vote against Nouns Prop 248. A key risk is that rage quit risks a stifling of treasury funds. Each treasury activation / funding grant would at least temporarily lower the book value of Nouns, so holders are faced with a trade-off every time they vote on a proposal: fund the prop vs. preserve the book value of their Noun. In theory, this creates a forcing function for better evaluating the merits of each prop – only props which are believed to drive future value to the DAO in excess of the current book value of each Noun would pass. In practice, that’s hard to quantify proactively. The consequence could be fewer funding approvals, especially for more provocative experiments that may not have as explicit financial returns. We recognize that, even if this proposal is defeated, it’s likely not the last time we’ll see a rage quit proposal submitted to the Nouns DAO. In light of this, it’s worth taking a moment to revisit some of what makes Nouns special: The ability to activate funds for bold, unique experiments in brand and community building Highly engaged community members A consistent source of funding (the daily auction) Any implementation of rage quit should seek to preserve those core primitives. 4156 has already proposed one alternative mechanism, whereby any Nouner who votes but lands in the minority on a proposal can rage quit as a sign of their dissent. This version would help encourage continued community engagement (by making voting a prerequisite to rage quitting), while preserving the ability of the community to access funding for projects. There may be other versions that preserve and protect the values of Nouns as well. We’re committed to evaluating each proposal on its individual merits. But today the version in question is what’s proposed in Prop 248, and we’re voting no.
0 references
https://youtu.be/eBt8v97j8HE ⌐N-O
0 references
23
supportive of the threshold split ragequit implementation instead of this approach. also dont approve of being careless with regulatory risk in general.
0 references
I am interested in seeing proposals that address the danger of the tyranny of the majority and offer a path beyond the Nounder veto, but I do not support this proposal. It reads like an attempt to offer disillusioned Noun holders a refund that would in some cases be partial and other cases be excessive. (I see many Nouns that have been trading on the floor on Blur voting for this.) I do not support the concept of Noun refunds, in general. Its also a brittle approach: freezing a certain book value, offering redemptions on a first come first served basis. It read to be primarily about money and not the health of the DAO. Eager to work together to find a way to address the issues at hand. Thanks for the time on this!
0 references
**AGAINST - 53 VOTES** **Akva** | *Bad prop.* *Intelligent rage quit is coming by Elad and David. Wait anon ⌐◨-◨* **pxlmnml** | *come on* **Benbodhi** | *That’s a no from me dawg. This feels like the opposite of nounish to me. Plus the contract has a hard coded book value which is weird. Only benefits people who want to arb the book value of nouns and managed to purchase their nouns below 41 eth.* *This is not nounish building imo.* **Pizza** | *Putting this through seems like it would be terrible for the culture which is already shaky currently. For this reason, im out.* **andrewladdusaw** | *Ragequit already exists in many forms, such as opensea or blur* **Josep** | *I do not feel qualified to give a decision on this proposal. It is not my area of expertise, it seems to me the most important decision that has been taken so far in Nouns DAO and, therefore, I believe that a better structured debate should be held in order to take the best possible steps for the DAO.* **FOR - 5 VOTES** **ABSTAIN - 4 VOTES**
0 references
Even though this proposal sucks, Im still voting for it to signal support. A Rage Quit mechanism should be part of Nouns. The sooner the better!
0 references
I think a ragequit function is key to any DAOs
0 references
Showing support for RQ. Not the best implementation but would like to see RQ implemented in some shape or form
0 references
19
0 references
8 March 2023
0 references
219
0 references
Rage quit
0 references
8 March 2023
0 references
3,674
0 references
3
0 references
0
0 references
3,268
0 references
1
0 references
The text discusses the implementation of a Rage Quit (RQ) option for the NounsDAO. The RQ option has been a topic of discussion but has not been implemented due to concerns about it making Nouns a security and breaking SEC laws. However, the text argues that the DAO already operates in grey areas regarding SEC regulations.
0 references
imo nouns needs a 100% refund policy to so as to wade these cc0 waters without brand damaging litigation. But i would vote for the idea of the DAO getting to vote to refund rage quiters - submit your proposal as to why you want to to exit nouns? + book value ETh request. i don't see why a valid reason why a 27k + ETH DAO cant refund a 25ETH purchase..DAOs shall not turn into prisons! a beg
There will eventually be a split mechanism, probably some variation of what Verbs is working on. This mechanism may address the concerns about refunds and exiting the DAO.
0 references
why are you getting so emotional over this (twitter and discord)? Its a proposal, if it passes it passes, if it doesnt it doesnt.--4156 was raging the other week its an open organization, rather than complaining, people just submit a proposal. Well, guess what, I submitted one and am just getting attacked lmao
NounsDAO is a very dear project to many, and proposals that focus on dividing and dismantling what has been built so far would be naturally met with defensive responses. It is encouraged to focus on building and spreading the nounish culture instead. While there is support for the idea of an exit mechanism, the current proposal has been met with strong opposition due to its one-sided nature and potential negative impact on the DAO.
0 references
