Proposal 159 (Q1819)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 159 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
72
0 references
60
0 references
159
0 references
Set proposal threshold --- --- Currently we have a threshold in place which requires 2 nouns to put a proposal on chain. The intention of the threshold is to reduce spam. For the current size of nounsDAO it is not necessary. This is a built-in threshold which can be adjusted at any time with a proposal. --- --- **Proposal to change the threshold from 2 nouns to 1 noun for putting a proposal on chain.** --- This would allow any address with a minimum of **1 NOUN** to formally propose to the DAO, until the Noun supply reaches **1000**. After that the threshold will be set to 2 again.
0 references
20 October 2022
0 references
Set proposal threshold
0 references
27
0 references
I feel like any Nouner should be able to propose to the rest of the protocol their idea on-chain and let the other nouners or delegates vote for or against it. If Nouners don’t want to give the proposals attention that is their business as they have deployed capital into it. Just having immediate access to one noun does not signal a bad idea, we can look at past proposals and see that is not the case. Drop the threshold, invite ideas, and good ideas will rise to the top.
0 references
We are not overflowing with proposals to justify excluding so many nouners from putting up props.
0 references
likely means more proposals. which in turn mean more on-chain data to learn from. especially since _nuking discord_ has already resulted in more reasoning on-chain.
0 references
19
Last time this type of proposal was made, except with an exaggerated time hook that ultimately distracted from the purpose of the prop, it was defeated... but I saw all brand new nouners voting Yes. In my opinion, that means that the 2 noun minimum is probably unnecessarily disenfranchising people who want to be active in the DAO. We dont yet have a problem with spam, and noun ownership is still a lofty bar (nobody is spending 50 ETH for the lulz), so I support lowering the threshold to 1 noun for now. This can always be revisited in future, if and when an over-concentration of low quality proposals becomes a problem. I think it is much more likely that a good proposal will not make it on chain due to the threshold being 2, than a bad prop will make it on chain because the threshold is only 1.
0 references
can always vote to adjust again if things really start bussin
0 references
I think owning a single Noun should allow the ability to submit a proposal, for now at least. I like until Noun #1000 and think that’s a good time to revisit this. ⌐◨-◨
0 references
After careful consideration, we believe this is very #ugly Proposals will have to be produced at a higher level as the Discord closes and this is a natural way to allow the community to expedite the process of figuring out quality vs. quantity for on-chain props <3
0 references
I think keeping the bar lower temporarily is a good idea, even more so now that the community will fragment into smaller subcommunities and it will naturally be a bit harder to find someone to help you put a prop on chain.
0 references
If people want to submit something but dont have two nouns, they can ask to be sponsored - this is something which has been very successful, in the past.
0 references
Although I generally support reducing friction for builders, I dont believe that temporarily lowering the quorum is the correct approach. If nouns proliferate well and maintain the current price, well run into the exact same problem later. Although well-intentioned, this only kicks the can down the road, where we should be looking for alternative solutions like autonomous proposals à la Compound / Uniswap.
0 references
its not clear from this proposal that this is a problem that needs solving. im in favor of keeping the threshold as-is until theres a compelling reason to change it.
0 references
15
⌐◨-◨: Nouncil votes No (22 Yes, 35 No, 5 Abstain) Discussion from Nouncil Discord https://discord.gg/nouncil **JoshuaFisher** I’m fine with this but also Like the barrier being 2 because it is a self selecting benefit in terms of how much time do they spend in the community. If you can’t get 2 Nouns then maybe not ready to go on-chain imho. **JoelCares** A 1 Noun threshold to submit proposals for the first 1000 Nouns feel reasonable to me. **andreitr** The existing threshold is a feature that reduces noise. **fiveoceans_dev** I also, agree to keep the threshold growing. It will make smaller stake holders to work together and in turn help coordinate against potential malicious activities by individual big stake holders **kerimbonia** Also in agreement that lowering the threshold will introduce more noise and with all the changes going on in the nouns ecosystem im not sure this is the best time for it. **mintface.eth** I lean towards a single Noun so that proposals get seen and evaluated. 2 Nouns min creates a three party negotiation to take something on-chain. Two parties are then seen to endorse or at a min be associated with proposer. The idea of acquire a Noun and propose is cool. **CHEFFO ⌐◧-◧** i think that the current system is healthy and not needing a change **samellis ⌐◨-◨** Drop the threshold, good ideas will rise, especially with the changes of gas reimbursement and the more than likely time extension, why put an additional “pay to play” barrier. Let folks come in with their ideas. **Benbodhi** Only just over a year until it would increase again. The barrier to entry to buy a noun is significant and the ability to submit a prop after purchasing a noun is something I feel should be possible. I know delegation and sponsorship is a thing, but I’m thinking of lone actors. Not sure it makes a huge difference in prop quality. **Toady_Hawk** I agree with reducing to one noun threshold. We don’t have a proposal spam problem yet (which is why this feature was baked in) so I think it makes sense to lower it to encourage more participation. Last time this was proposed (with a long time period attached that muddied the waters) it was all the brand new Nouners voting yes, which I think was telling. Keep in mind if spam ever became a problem, another proposal could easily raise the threshold again. **lil bk** all in favor of reducing the threshold
0 references
20 October 2022
0 references
0
0 references
0
0 references
1
0 references
The text does not provide the name of the team or builder that proposes the
0 references
