Proposal 192 (Q1865)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 192 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
62
0 references
8
0 references
Verbs team
0 references
192
0 references
16 December 2022
0 references
192
0 references
Verbs 6 Month Extension
0 references
These are incredibly important people to the DAO and work on significant protocol upgrades, from gas efficiency to core DAO behavior like governance and treasury spending. I also think the compensation is fair for this type of role and the quality of engineers the Verbs team (and Solimander) are.
0 references
Verbs is important, possibly the most important technical team funded by the DAO. Verbs makes a lot of money. Verbs should be used as a ceiling for technical team compensation, at least in cases where there isnt a specific project being funded but more of a residency for the DAO, unless there is very specific reason why it should be increased. We should keep this benchmark in mind when funding/renewing future residencies. We love the Verbs.
0 references
need to keep improving the base nouns protocol.
0 references
Big supporter of these guys. Very thoughtful and skilled. Amazing asset to the DAO. ⌐◨-◨
0 references
11
**Nouncil Vote:** 37 Yes, 5 No, 2 Abstain 6 Nouncillors abstained from the decision **YES WINS** --- **Vote Reasons & Discussion** --- **Benbodhi** | *Thoughtful and skilful giga brains.* ⌐◨-◨ **Wattsy** | *These are not industry standard salaries, they are much higher.* **Mach** | *Voting yes, but will be looking at the work done. I do not think that 450,000 per year in work has been done so far. Expect big contributions over the next 6 months.* **Mindtoasted** | *I proudly vote yes on this, the previous proposal went smoothly. A concrete team with a vision.* **Coral Orca** | *we like the verbs* **RyanMac ⌐◨-◨** | *No brainer* --- For more Nouns DAO proposal discussion head to the Nouncil Discord: https://discord.gg/nouncil
0 references
16 December 2022
0 references
Is it not the opposite? Inactive folks burn their tokens for eth, which I then assume lowers base quorum? Making the required amount of nouns to 51% attack lower and lower?
Ragequit is being worked on for the purpose of protecting the DAO from a 51% attack. The goal is not to act as a book value protector, but rather as a last resort defense with minimal financial side effects. The team is exploring design options to achieve this, including requiring a minimal amount of Nouns voting opposite of the outcome of a proposal as a condition for ragequitting. They are open to considering other design options and ways to protect against 51% attacks.
0 references
Suboptimal thinking you say?-But why wouldn’t the recent buyers then hit that button and redeem extra Ξ from treasury and repeat until bv is “fixed”… in the process, pocketing the treasury Ξ for doing nothing for the DAO?
Ragequit is being worked on for the purpose of protecting the DAO from a 51% attack, not as a book value protector. The goal is to keep ragequit as a last resort defense while having as little financial side effects as possible. Some options being considered involve allowing ragequit only if a minimal amount of nouns vote opposite of the outcome of a proposal. The team is open to exploring more design options and other ways to protect against 51% attacks.
0 references
18
0 references
18
0 references
482.67
0 references
450,000
0 references
4
0 references
6
0 references
450,000
0 references
The Verbs team is requesting the same budget as their previous 6-month term to tackle a valuable backlog of tasks. So far, they have made art contracts cheaper to deploy, upgraded D AO V2, enabled trustless proposal payments in USDC, and added a price history feed to Auction House.
0 references
1
0 references
