Proposal 238 (Q1910)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 238 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
12 February 2023
0 references
238
0 references
103
0 references
97
0 references
Functional Props
0 references
91
0 references
From a technical standpoint I think this is really cool. However I have a hard time seeing this being widely adopted and Im not sure there are many props that would benefit from these tools.
0 references
while I appreciate the intention behind this proposal, i am not convinced it would significantly move the DAO forward. having a clear and concise ask is important to the proposal process. rather than relying on game theory to skew outcomes, the DAO should vote on a static ask. off-chain discussion might be a better fit for this topic, as social consensus often leads to meaningful results. that being said, i like DigitalOil and am excited to see what other ideas they have for the DAO. i am always happy to vote in favor of proposals that will have a significant impact on the DAO.
0 references
My concern is that props using functional funding will lead to squishy asks, where the prop really only requires the minimum of the given range, but proposers will unnecessarily include a window above that in an attempt to siphon off more ETH. The existing process of re submission and altering ask sizes is not that bad - I could see this tool being abused and making the process worse in that regard, not better.
0 references
28
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
i think the cost is fair, and it could also lead to new ideas to improve or offer alternatives to the current proposal constraints.
0 references
The innovative approach to Human Organization presented here is a promising addition to the Nouns toolkit, which continues to lead the way with innovative public goods. I support the continued exploration of fresh governance approaches, such as the Function Props concept, which can leverage the benefits of large group decision-making.
0 references
voting yes because of the generalized NFT distribution contracts, not because of self referential proposals
0 references
Reasonings given on my newsletter: https://cbites.substack.com/p/active-governance-noun-582-2
0 references
The range funding is the killer app here imo. Gives proposers with that flexibility the option to potentially get more vote support than a fixed rate.
0 references
I have doubts about this particular implementation being the right one that can be widely used. It bundles the YES/NO vote and the funding amount vote in a way such that I as a voter dont *really* know what Im voting for when I vote and if I have a preference in the funding range possibility I would have to wait until the very last minute to cast my vote (for example, if I wouldnt be in favor if the funding amount landed on the high range, Id have to wait to see how many others vote in favor). BUT Im in favor of experimenting to find better mechanisms we can use to reach non-binary outcomes for proposals and for that reason Im voting in favor. Even if this isnt used much or is used and we discover what the shortcoming is, that would be a plus in my book.
0 references
I think that it is important for the DAO to continue to explore new ways to use governance to resolve conflict, and I see Function Props as a promising direction here. They could offer a way to take advantage of the concave decision making advantage of large groups: where any point along the spectrum from 0 to 1 is higher value than either a 0 or 1 outcome. I also think the funding ask is reasonable, considering audit is included. Good luck!
0 references
Nounish dev building nounish things - hopefully having funding methods like this save the dao money in the long term nounishly positive
0 references
Digitaloil
0 references
12 February 2023
0 references
for the love of dao science
0 references
the main mechanics of the dao, particularly nouner-facing ones, should stick to the KISS principle as much as possible. functional funding would greatly reduce clarity on what we are voting for as the outcome wouldnt be known until finalizing the vote. all that said, i think it is an interesting experiment and would like to see it out in the wild as a stand alone mechanism for pods/sub-communities/etc to play with - not for the main dao.
0 references
10
Vote threshold not met. **FOR - 34 VOTES** **pxlmnml** | *innovative price discovery* **profwerder** | *Great way to put the NFTs in the treasury to work!* **byhardy** | *Sounds like this can be implemented, so Im in full support. More than reasonable cost.* **NO - 4 VOTES** **ABSTAIN - 2 VOTE**
0 references
1
0 references
35
0 references
23
0 references
35
0 references
The text discusses the development of a new technology called functional props that allows for a more efficient way of distributing NFTs and funding. The technology enables any proposer to propose the distribution of current or future NFTs in the Treasury. The number of NFTs to distribute is 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
