Proposal 233 (Q1775)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 233 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
112
0 references
21
0 references
81
0 references
Nouns Acquisition Committee - delegation changes --- --- The Nouns Acquisition Committee (NAC) was established by Proposal 44, and has successfully acquired Nouns on behalf of the DAO for later distribution to builders as compensation. --- --- The NAC Multisig (0x9298B97dE93784635900163e582A5D9e570f35a5) currently custodies 3 nouns in escrow on behalf of builders with approved but incomplete proposals. They are delegated to the Nouncil as specified in the original proposal. --- --- These Nouns are collectively owned by the DAO. As Nouncil has grown and developed its own culture that is distinct from the greater NounsDAO, this delegation is no longer appropriate. --- --- This proposal instructs the NAC to: --- 1) delegate these Nouns to itself (0x9298B97dE93784635900163e582A5D9e570f35a5) --- 2) refrain from voting on future proposals.
0 references
7 February 2023
0 references
233
0 references
Nouns Acquisition Committee - delegation changes
0 references
28
Rectifying the mistake of an open delegation, Nouns in escrow for others or in the treasury should be politically fallow. Not in favor of non-state change Proposal as a rule.
0 references
i agree with the sentiment that we should avoid putting proposals on-chain that dont modify on-chain state, and as such, Ill be abstaining from any future proposals that fit this description. however, I strongly believe that Nouns acquired using DAO funds as a form of future compensation shouldnt be utilized for governance until theyve been correctly distributed to their intended recipients.
0 references
This action makes sense to me. Nouns pending award should not be used to vote. Aside, I think the current model of using the Nouns Acquisition Committee is really broken, and I look forward to the day when the DAO can directly mint Nouns to people.
0 references
+1 to 4156s thoughts
0 references
16
props that are instructive but dont modify on-chain state are a slippery slope and i feel reasonably strongly that they should be avoided. in the long run they could mire the dao in uncertainty and possibly even legal disputes. its a more scalable approach to assume that any funds or assets that are external to the dao are the purview of the individuals or groups that control them. in the case of this proposal, the decision should be made by NAC
0 references
Reasonings given on my newsletter: https://cbites.substack.com/p/active-governance-noun-582-2
0 references
Nouns acquisition committee
0 references
7 February 2023
0 references
12
Vote Threshold not met. **FOR - 15 VOTES** **AGAINST - 14 VOTES** **ABSTAIN - 13 VOTES**
0 references
26
0 references
0
0 references
1
0 references
Do we have more clarification on this proposal for things such as:--- Is it someone that's a part of the NAC that's requesting this or is this a neutral party?-- What does the NAC think, if they aren't the ones who requested this?-- This can't be trustless in execution, so, there's always that question mark
The proposal was put up by willprice#7766, who is not a part of the NAC. Noun 22#2222 mentioned that it's not coming from the NAC and the NAC has no opinion on it. The execution is not trustless, but they will honor it.
0 references
