Proposal 241 (Q1847)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 241 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
241
0 references
128
0 references
107
0 references
Digitaloil
0 references
24 February 2023
0 references
93
0 references
Functional Props (Take 2)
0 references
36
Voted Yes last time and its been clarified, focused, and improved. My comment last time: Digitaloil is demonstrably dedicated, creative and aligned with Nouns long term and wants to try and build a useful Nounish primitive. Lets see how he impresses.
0 references
same as my previous vote on take 1
0 references
This is innovative Public Good for Human Organization and I look forward to seeing it used as part of the Nouns governance toolkit.
0 references
Im into it. I think various funding mechanics are a good thing and the ability to fund via treasury owned NFTs is also cool.
0 references
Full reasoning on my newsletter: https://cbites.substack.com/p/active-governance-noun-582-3
0 references
Come and listen, friends, to this tale Ill tell, Of a new way to reach consensus thats swell, No more choosing just between black or white, Functional props allow for shades of light. These proposals hold the key, To unlock a new form of democracy, Where opinions can truly be expressed, And progress can be made with greater finesse. Gone is the limited choice that leads us astray, No longer a binary path that holds sway, Functional props usher in a world of grey, And pave the path for a better future today. So let us cast our votes for functional props, And usher in a future that pops, Where diverse opinions can have their say, And chart a new course in every way. For in this world of nuanced shades, We find endless possibility cascades, A place where progress can truly play, And shape a future thats bright and gay.
0 references
**FOR - 44 VOTES** **RobotFishGirl** | *DigitalOil is a brilliant builder and I believe the tools outlined in this prop will be a valuable add- its why I also said yes to the first prop. The changes made in v2 have only reaffirmed that belief and choice.* **NO - 3 VOTES** **ABSTAIN - 7 VOTES**
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, 24 against and 15 abstain, we choose to vote against. We abstained in the last proposal, because we appreciated DigitalOil’s exploration of dynamic range for community fundraising tools. The reason for the change in the outcome of the two rounds of proposals is that the new proposal became more and more difficult to understand, especially the second part. We support the exploration of dynamic funding. The content of the second part belongs to a direction that is correct, but proposes an overly complicated experimental scheme. The new proposal itself did not improve, and requires a philosophical dialectical understanding to enter the context of the proposal, which is a good idea, but not a product that people need. Although DigitalOil absorbed everyone’s opinions and made improvements. The financial and team parts of the proposal still did not improve, making the evaluation more difficult. We suggest implementing the first part of the product and applying for a “Small Grant”. Although we vote against, we recognize DigitalOil’s product philosophy, and the mechanization of dynamic financial governance is a very important direction. Nouns’ funding support means are limited (on-chain proposal, Small Round, Prop House), and it is difficult to fund governance thinkers and developers like DigitalOil. When the product is just an early personal idea, and has not reached the stage of being needed by the community, it should not use On-chain Proposal. Maybe we can open a round of “dynamic funding” Prop House to explore this path?
0 references
i am a fan of DigitalOil and would vote yes for them to work on ideas that would benefit the DAO. my opinion remains unchanged though in that i do not believe that functional props will lead to better governance for the DAO at this time.
0 references
general distro is cool but unsure about leveraging binary yes/no votes as a way to scale prop compensation
0 references
Appreciate digoil taking their time to re-submit but dont think this is a good direction for governance.
0 references
23
Im actually changing my vote to an against from last time. its partly b/c my concern around voters not really knowing what they are voting yes to has not been addressed. those who want to control the range, can do so by voting later is bad voter UX imo. if I care about an outcome I need to make sure to set an alarm right before vote end. I care a lot about nouns gov but dont want my schedule to be run by various vote end times. another (main) reason for the change of vote is that I voted yes last time b/c Im pro gov experimentation, but this prop now feels more like making it a part of the canonical gov mechanisms (embedded into the nouns.wtf UI). I mostly disagree that functional props with parameter ranges based on yes/no voting splits would have been the right (constructively additive) way to approach many of the props noted in this prop so I feel less comfortable voting it in as one of the main ways to create a proposal in the main UI.
0 references
24 February 2023
0 references
38
0 references
1
0 references
0
0 references
38
0 references
This is a resubmission of Prop 238, proposing the development and deployment of a generalized NFT random distributor and a contract for functional funding. The NFT distributor allows any propos er to suggest distribution of current or future NFTs in the treasury, with the number of NFTs distributed determined by the props vote counts.
0 references
Did a quick pass-through of how functions could have aided in some recent props:--236: Wizard’s Hat — determine mint price-223: House of Nouns — Tiered funding-217: Stake additional 5000 ETH in LIDO — stake between 1000-10,000 depending on support of prop. Instead of submitting a second prop for another 5,000.-206: Nouns on the Ground 2023 — Do tiered funding (5, 10, or 15 IRL events) instead of all or nothing-202: nouns.eth set reverse record — do we also fund jacob for idea and what amount? propose range between 0-1 ETH-184: Nouns funding ZachXBT — fund within range 50-100 ETH-167: Nouns Builder — seed fund within a range 500-1,000 ETH-125: 8/8 anniversary art — only change existing traits if unanimous vote
Functional props could potentially aid in various proposals by allowing for tiered funding, determining mint prices, staking different amounts, and more. However, there are concerns about whether this feature would move the needle or add unnecessary complexity to the voting process. Some users suggest that it could be used as a temperature gauge before proposals go on-chain or to allow for milestone-based payouts. The overall impact of functional props would need to be assessed through simulations and considering various outcomes.
0 references
Fair point, could bring in some interesting dynamics…… but I just had an idea, what if this feature was used as a temperature gauge before props went on chain? …… wondering if that would cause voting fatigue though 🤔
Functional props could be used as a temperature gauge before props go on chain, but there is a concern that it might cause voting fatigue. The idea of functional funding is to allow for non-binary outcomes on votes and to make use of the treasury more efficiently by funding proposals at a level that the DAO collectively values. However, it's important to consider that not all proposals would be suitable for functional funding, and it should be applied strategically when it makes sense.
0 references
I echo this. --The dynamics could add an extra burden to voting that is unnecessary too. And I’m not sure the contentiousness of the vote is actually the best method of deciding funding. --(As most votes pass by a good margin I could also imagine proposers setting a ‘floor’ of what the would have asked anyways and then if they get a strong vote anything else is a bonus)--Tbh my main concern with the prop is digitaloil using his brain on something that doesn’t move the needle…so I’m not against the prop I just hope he considers what is the best means for solving the biggest problems we have in this area
Functional funding allows for the vote of against voters to influence the outcome too, providing a voice for all voters, even the ones that choose the least popular choice. For many outcomes, it's a better representation of the DAO's global desire. Some decisions are suboptimal when they are unnecessarily pigeon-holed into two outcomes only because it's been the status quo to do so.
0 references
if I support a proposal getting $50k but not $100k, how am I supposed to decide how to vote before the very last second? I need to be aware of how others are voting to accurately decide. Not a healthy dynamic imo
When you vote for a proposal with a range, you are indicating you are comfortable with the range. This means proposers that use this dynamic need to be strategic to choose a range that makes sense. The dynamic shouldn't apply to all proposals, just ones that it makes sense for. The idea is to do a pull request to the nouns front-end and/or agora/HoN so that the proposer has a GUI for it, like the USDC converter. This feature could potentially be used for tiered funding or milestone-based payouts, depending on the vote outcome.
0 references
If more props could potentially be passed by utilizing this feature, could that be seen as moving the needle? Just a thought 💭
Functional props could potentially move the needle by allowing for non-binary outcomes on votes and enabling the DAO to decide on a range of funding amounts. However, it's important for proposers to choose a range that makes sense and consider whether to activate this option ahead of time. The feature could also be used as a temperature gauge before props go on chain, but there are concerns about voting fatigue.
0 references
I like the uniqueness of the prop, it’s adding in a dynamic layer to things….. but would have to run some simulations of all the possible outcomes to see the overall impact….. for instance instead of focusing on a price range maybe it’s the idea that the builder asked for say 100eth upfront and say the consensus is we like the prop but would rather have payouts in milestones, this feature could allow for that change…. Right <@804175509986607115> or am I off base with that?
For the example mentioned, it makes sense for the proposer to propose tiered funding, which is intended to be baked into functional funding. This would allow for payouts in milestones, depending on the vote outcome, and would apply to scenarios where it makes sense.
0 references
I've been looking for the PR to nouns.wtf but I couldn't find it. Is it already merged?
0 references
So builders who put up a proposal need to choose whether to have this option activated ahead of time or not?
Builders who put up a proposal need to choose whether to have the functional funding option activated ahead of time or not. The idea is to do a pull request to the nouns front-end and/or agora/HoN so that the proposer has a GUI for it, like the USDC converter. This allows for non-binary outcomes on votes and can make the use of treasury more efficient. However, it should only be applied to proposals where it makes sense, and proposers need to be strategic in choosing a range that makes sense.
0 references
The Nouns Builder example is a great one. 1,000 ETH is arbitrary. 500 ETH could have also worked. Why do such sizable decisions need to be binary?--0 or 1,000 ETH. Huge gap there.--A prop with a range between 500-1,000 ETH makes more sense. If the DAO unanimously thinks its a good idea to seed fund Builder, then 1,000 ETH go out. If it passes but barely, Builder gets 500 ETH. Boom, Nouns “saved” 500 ETH thanks to functional funding.--Note: This is not a critique on Builder. I have it listed as THE most impactful prop to date, and a project I run has gotten funded by Builder ❤️
There is no direct answer to the question about why sizable decisions need to be binary. However, there is a discussion about the potential impact of functional funding and how it could change the dynamics of voting. Some concerns include the extra burden on voting, the contentiousness of the vote not being the best method for deciding funding, and the possibility of proposers setting a floor for their funding requests. It is also mentioned that the size of the ask could be considered in determining the majority required to pass a vote, but this is something that may be tackled after DAO v3.
0 references
Why would the Builder Prop proposer use functional funding instead of a binary decision?--Because it’s insensible not to make it functional for a prop with an ask that big if it doesn't have a hard cost.
The Builder Prop proposer used functional funding instead of a binary decision because it allows for more flexibility in funding proposals with a large ask that doesn't have a hard cost. This approach can potentially lead to more proposals being passed and can be used as a temperature gauge before proposals go on-chain. However, it also introduces some complexities and challenges in the voting process.
0 references
Would something that references the size of the ask in determining the majority required to pass a vote make more sense? --So for example if something is: >0.75% of treasury it requires an extra 1% over 50% for the vote. And then for ever .25% over that an extra 1% (I’m making up numbers) --But basically should a 1000 eth prop have the same criteria (>50%) as a 50 eth prop?
Yes, the idea of having different majority requirements based on the size of the ask has been considered. Besides majority requirements, it can also require different quorum or different voting periods. This is something planned to be tackled after DAO v3.
0 references
