0xae65e700f3f8904ac1007d47a5309dd26f8146c0 (Q200)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0xae65e700f3f8904ac1007d47a5309dd26f8146c0 |
Individual |
Statements
+1 to krels and senecas vote reasons. worth having a shot on goal for a good display font many can use. doesnt have to be THE font but something many like to use would be a good aim.
0 references
21
Ive met with matthew and osama in eth denver and know that their hearts are in the right place regarding their love for nouns and appreciation for public goods and the belief around the proliferation effect that nouns-branded / nouns-originated public goods can have. so while the questions the folks are raising are valid (re: senecas comments) I trust the team to be open minded / collaborative and work through the concerns. we need more values and incentive aligned (both of the builders are nouners!) technical teams building onchain tools for our onchain world and Im very much supportive of this energy.
0 references
21
the $1M we spent funding the nounish team for the past 6 months is arguably the best $1M weve spent so far. I still remember the giddy excitement I had when I saw the original prop go up. it was a dream come true moment. FINALLY, goldy and 142 decided to go all in on nouns. they are an incredible fit for the task not only b/c they are world-class talent, but b/c they really really love nouns and want to see it succeed. theres a special level of care you put into the things that you love dearly and it shows in their work with nouns. also, the days before nounish were dark days. we funded all of this cool stuff but it felt like we didnt get to SEE them come to life. since funding nounish, its all over twitter whenever something cool happens. like the rose parade moment. I dont want to go back to the dark days. nouns will make so much cool shit happen in the coming years and I cant think of a better team than nounish to help tell the story. strong yes from me.
0 references
21
Ive been waiting for a droposal from the nounish team forever! (I wish they would mint all the past legendary stuff as well)
0 references
21
klims dedication and contribution to creating physical objects for the nouns world has been legendary. the universal plastic glasses alone has been huge. excited about this prop specifically as well. these look good enough that Id love to have one on my work desk as a conversation starter with anyone that notices.
0 references
21
love this fun and slightly absurd proposal. love the iteration from the previous proposal as well. voting design A (even though I like C, I think A does a better job communicating that the thing inside is indeed wet wipes)
0 references
21
fun prop that feels connected to a genuine crypto culture we can help amplify.
0 references
21
a correction Id like to make to tm0b1ls stat around 11 of the 15 recent props passing is that it excludes 5 cancelled props. the cancelled props were mostly cancelled after receiving a wall of against votes so they are better understood as defeated prop for the purposes here rather than non-existent props. so weve passed 11 out of the past 20. the picture that that paints to me is that were already doing a good job at being protective against grifts or overspending. getting the majority of votes to be a FOR vote is already a tall order. I dont think the added hurdle really serves us well. you could say that it was only triggered 1 out of the 20 recent props so it is just inconsequential. it doesnt have much cost. but I consider the cognitive cost to be real. like bloat in a code base. its bloat in the governance process. a specific threshold until which AGAINST votes have double the weight. proposers and voters have to remember and track that each prop. Im voting to reduce this hurdle and cognitive load.
0 references
21
would love to see this funded and later for the ethOS team to execute and come back asking for more after the nouns community had a chance to familiarize themselves with the ethOS phone more. I see ethOS pushing forward an important bold mission on behalf of the ethereum community. maybe in the end apple/google play ball with the crypto movement and our progress is not hindered by their arbitrary censorship of weird rules (e.g. asking apps for a cut of the txn gas fees the apps facilitate). if there comes a time where we really come up against apple/google, then I think wed really feel grateful for a team like the ethOS team for have created alternatives we can choose rather than be stuck in their digital fiefdom. I aplaude the ethOS team for taking on this important public open source work and feel excited for nouns to play a small role with this funding.
0 references
21
Ive been working on a crypto company in the U.S. called bitwise for the past 7 years and the number of times I felt THANK GOD COIN CENTER IS WITH US is very high. they are a non profit. they are not getting filthy rich off of their work. supporting them and showing appreciation for their work is not a political matter imo in the same way we might consider funding other controversial societal matters. this is about supporting the credible neutrality of the base layer that is the substrate of our onchain world. we have a chance to support that public good while accruing attention to the nouns brand and I think we should take it.
0 references
21
I like this a lot. as to noun 12s point about like why sell a $230 all-in unit for $50: I think if this is meant to be a sustainable business then thinking about it in those terms makes sense. but this to me is more like nouns funding a one time art project. nouns is subsidizing the creation of the art objects to be given out and having a non-zero price tag ($50) to make sure ppl that actually want them still put some of their own money to get them. funding this type of art (and building brand value doing so) is something nouns is uniquely suited to do and feel very excited to see this come to life (and other things artists like tigris bring forth in a similar model).
0 references
21
hmm... I dont disagree with the vote reasons so far, but I think it really depends on whether we think of autobidder as a category name or as a product name. I dont quite mind if like agora for some reason needed a subdomain from us and asked for agora.nouns.eth. that doesnt really create concerns around making one product more canonical over others. it might be annoying if every team/product put up an onchain prop for this purpose just administratively but nothing beyond that. Im voting yes b/c I think of autobidder more as a product name and as a result dont think we need to be too vigilant here. however, as a general matter, Id prefer if teams/products used their own ENS namespace rather than use the nouns.eth subdomain namesapce unless necessary given the admin overhead for the dao!
0 references
21
Also a +1 on wilsons vote reasons. Excited for more nouns stories!
0 references
22
had a moment of wondering if it’s not more appropriate for this to be a gnars mint than a nouns mint esp given the mint proceeds split much favors gnars, but decided to err on the side of voting yes given gnars is a nounish subculture that I wholeheartedly love and want to celebrate the first EP from this special place.
0 references
22
idk, theres something a bit absurdist and funny about nouns wet wipes? also the budget ask is very modest and Im very much in favor of nouners dabbling with their first onchain prop with something very manageable and within their expertise. like this isnt low effort or a grift of any sort imo. this just feels like two genuine nouners with retail expertise being like whats something small we could try first? Im supportive of this energy.
0 references
22
nouns esports ftw. personally know many nouners that were nouns-pilled through nouns esports. esports is a sub culture that we have a lot of room to run in and Im excited to see how far this can grow. also love that this squad achieved so much with a tight budget so far. rooting for our nouns esports teams! make us proud!
0 references
22
time square billboards arent necessarily my favorite marketing spend... but ended up thinking we should still support danit.
0 references
22
love short shorts. this addition is a great spend. the team should also start a PH infinite round to get small grants & retro funding out to animators even outside of these big timed funding rounds.
0 references
22
love this. I like the focus around a specific vertical of events and that they’ve already shownm success in this category. ask seems reasonable as well. best of luck!
0 references
22
absolutely love this proposal. nounishness to me is about playfulness, absurdity, craft, and optimism, and it seems like this story has the potential to capture all of those qualities in a delightful way. love that nouns is a place that can encourage ppl do things like this and a place to share those stories. cant wait to see the documentary!
0 references
22
I don’t disagree with the tracks myself and think this is a great idea so voting FOR but would advocate listening to the dissenting views and incorporating them into the final tracks we go with. trust the explorer grants team to handle that well 🙏
0 references
22
supportive of utilizing the work and momentum already built and extending the reach to NY
0 references
22
I know some disagree with me but I maintain that heyanoun has been net positive to nouns (its useful to know where the vibe floor is and you just need to walk into heyanoun v1 like a war zone). hopefully the v2 with persistent pseudonyms and threading and the natural curation with the up/down votes will make it less like a war zone and a place that private truths can be surfaced in a constructive way. if theres any team that will navigate this complex technical and social space thoughtfully I think its the personae labs team!
0 references
23
excited to bet on the atrium team here. theyve been incredible so far. cant wait to see the pilot! the budget for the whole feature film ($2.75M) would be one of the largest bets weve ever taken (would be about 6% of our $43M treasury), but Im happy to make that bet and fund it through if what we continue to see is top notch as we have seen in the past.
0 references
23
as much as possible would advocate to establish a shared backend schema with projects like house of nouns and agora that are thinking of their own versions of this such that the idea liquidity can be shared and collectively built. regardless, I support this effort and feel pretty bullish that one or a combination of these approaches proving to be successful can help the draft idea to onchain prop pipeline improve significantly, which would help a lot.
0 references
23
the house of nouns team is a very nounish squad imo. not only have they continued to iterate on the HoN v1 product (after winning the governance mandated prop house round) into something that many voters use as their default voting client including myself, but theyve also continued to hack on other ideas in the nouniverse without comp for the fun of it (e.g. https://thatsgnar.ly/ is their work). very supportive of the HoN product to continue to be iterated on and very supportive of this team.
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
wow love the energy from nounsprotector.eth. thanks for digging into the details and sharing the results of your research. I do feel differently on the conclusion though. I dont feel like this is a low effort product lobbying prop. stETH peg protection is something we actually could use (of all the defi stuff out there this doesnt feel random to me) and also theyve done their homework to make their L2 product work for our L1 dao. the optimism proxy contract we get out of this makes it feel like a good faith engagement to me. however I do see the liquidity concern that nounsprotector is raising. given this prop is just to get the funding for the audit for the optimism proxy contract, Im happy to vote FOR this prop and will just say that the second props execution ask should be appropriate to the liquidity available (or else it would be hard to vote in favor!)
0 references
I heavily agree with all that already has been said (esp what wilson wrote out in detail). one thing I wanted to add is that I think we should break out of the mold of a single governor. well likely need to keep a single auction house but theres no reason for us to not utilize multiple governors for different purposes. for example, since the historic success of prop 190 weve all known that droposals by the dao are a thing that can really work. it can be meaningful monetization for the public art created for both the artist and the dao and doesnt hinder the cc0 / all-public-access nature of the artwork while also allowing the dao to define what it views as canonical. amazing. we love that. HOWEVER, we havent been able to really utilize droposals at an internet pace well yet b/c the two week process of getting a prop onchain and then it getting through just breaks the whole vibe. but there is no reason that the droposal props need two weeks worth of rigor. it doesnt ask for funding. it doesnt change the smart contracts. it should be a separate governor that has lets say a 30% threshold (or whatever we think is enough to make something canon) and whenever that threshold is met the droposal goes through and nouns provenance stamp lands on the OE mint. that should be possible on a moments notice as long as enough voters agree. once we break out of the idea of a single governor then a number of these bottleneck issues or code base capture issues that have been raised can also be lessoned. different teams can be working on different governors. we can also just try something that would otherwise feel impossibly contentious. like once private voting is ready, we probably shouldnt argue about whether the main governor should adopt it. we should just deploy a governor with private voting, send a minimal amount of dao funds to it, then see what that experience is like! of course there should be commonalities between governors. if the verbs team builds out the NFT-first nouns governor as they propose here, then it would be best for everyone to share that base (and fork from there) so that the governance clients can easily support the multiple governors. but I think increasingly the real value prop of the verbs team might be in defining that base and evolving that base where a lot of experimentation can still occur by other teams from all the forks that serve different functions / experiments. excited for a multi governor world for nouns!
0 references
supportive of the attempt to create nounish animations for kids
0 references
Ive been feeling for a while that the nouns community and culture could benefit from more IRL festival type events . meeting nouns friends in eth denver, then this week in LA for the short shorts thing, it has reinforced that view for me. 10 ETH should be enough for ppl to do decently ambitious things and a prop house round seems like a neutral way for selecting the 5 locations. on the time line though, I hope we can make the proposal submission period 2 weeks instead of 1 since ppl need time to get a proposal together!
0 references
supportive of trying to engage the comic book industry & fans further!
0 references
you can talk about being aligned with ethereum all day long but at the end of the day for it to really mean something you have to pick up the bill to support ethereums most important public goods. I love that nouns is continuing to double down on our commitment and support of ethereum and its decentralization even through the depths of the bear market. this a group that Im truly proud to be a part of.
0 references
21
I feel similarly to seneca and will pappers views. would support more organic bottoms up local activations / community events rather than social media marketing.
0 references
21
I would really love this group to propose something that isnt an NFT conference sponsorship! love the nouns BR community but not really the target of this prop.
0 references
21
in general, Im more skeptical about the dao funding things that has a clear funding model (unlike public art or open source software, you can charge for a consumer good like this). to bootstrap an entirely new category or a new effort level, we should be open to it, but dont think thats the case here. appreciate the proposers efforts into putting up proposal here but voting against.
0 references
21
hmm.. I appreciate jihad & noun 12s view here. but I ultimately feel like props like this arent free. the voter base has to read through, weigh, and vote, which has cognitive & financial costs (gas). so while I appreciate digitaloils work personally, I dont want to encourage the promotion of onchain products through nouns onchain props when it doesnt really serve a need for us. thus, voting against.
0 references
21
feel similarly to brennen & krel. I loved the music videos but would need to see a glimpse of a game that could actually be fun to play to support this. would be happy to fund a smaller pilot.
0 references
21
theres some amount of romanticism for the old discord that I find hard to agree with personally. originally when there were ~50 nouns the nouner-general channel did indeed work well like how many small to medium sized group chats do. but as it became hundreds it really did become this wasteland where it was mostly dominated by whoever is just willing to speak, ppl being triggered, constant bickering, etc. regardless of official or not, or who moderates, I just dont know of a synchronous group chat (not twitter style follow, not reddit style upvote curation, just a scroll chat) that really works well with hundreds of members in it. they usually devolve into wastelands (punks, apes, really any large nft project discord Ive been to have been the same way). so while Im supportive of community discords in their own instances serving mid sized communities, having THE discord and hoping it doesnt run into the same issues the old discord ran into when membership gets bigger feels like were signing up for the same pain again. love oni and appreciate his energy here but have ptsd from the old discord and really not hoping to revive those dynamics back.
0 references
22
appreciate the team and the energy they put into launching the site but unfortunately my feeling is that this isnt yet something the community actually uses much yet. so rather than scaling the funding and doubling down on the current direction, I would rather support something smaller to explore product market fit. for example, maybe the strongest need is not archiving everything in this schema but rather just to bring all the CC0 media to a imgur/flickr like site that you can easily search and find the image/video youre looking for? (according to the attached screenshots of ppl describing pain points that seems to be the strongest need)
0 references
22
I dont understand this prop tbh. we currently use NAC to acquire nouns. theres flaws to NAC that we fully recognize and as a community have debated alternative designs extensively and settled on a path: https://snapshot.org/#/nouns.eth/proposal/0xebe4aec5b96dc5c008902da341bcd4936f5aa09baf73daaa545259183b203089 then what is this proposal trying to say? that we should actually use this rather than the path weve set out? or that we should use this as a replacement of NAC for the time being? lil nouns already uses this so the purpose of the prop is not to test if it works. after asking on twitter it seems like the purpose is to actually build social consensus around this as the preferred approach of the dao acquiring nouns. but the prop is not written in a way to even have that conversation and if we were to have that conversation it has many flaws including the ones that wilson has pointed out. voting no bc I dont think this is the best mechanism for the dao to acquire nouns and tbh I find the prop a bit misguided
0 references
22
I like the energy but the prop feels like its trying to do too much / asking for too much with very little proof points from my perspective. Im not convinced MK fans looking to spend ~$500 on a custom keyboard really wants noggles painted over them unless they are already a nouns fan? Im also not convinced that MK fans are looking to join a DAO? Id support a prop that doesnt yet worry about a DAO, create the smallest possible batch (even if per unit economics is worse), and prove out that theres demand here. Also for physical products like this Id prefer for the economic relationship here to be more clear. Will the units be sold at cost? Sold at a profit and be taken by the proposers to compensate for the work involved? Im not saying something has to come back to the dao, Id just prefer the situation to be spelled out more clearly.
0 references
22
if you read all the dialogue surrounding WHY we implemented dynamic quorum (compiled here: https://twitter.com/noun40__/status/1644116800366321665), it really wasnt to raise the hell yes threshold. it was to make governance attacks that leverage voter apathy more expensive. so I dont quite agree with the rationale here that we should raise it since we didnt get to use it much. like we dont think veto isnt being useful right now (and we need to make it be used more for that reason). put differently, the best outcome for a security feature is that it doesnt get used. so dynamic quorum is serving its intended purpose right now imo. raising the maximum quorum % also makes it easier for a malicious minority to troll (e.g. if a 10% voting block votes NO on everything, 2x that number (20%) needs to show up to vote YES to pass something).
0 references
22
I love gamis ideas/energy in general but this one I struggle to think the dao should endorse through a droposal given the mechanisms involved here dont feel particularly nounish to me.
0 references
23
supportive of the threshold split ragequit implementation instead of this approach. also dont approve of being careless with regulatory risk in general.
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
23
this prop is written in a way that feels a bit more ceramic-capabilities focused than nouns-need focused to me. I reached out to the team and it seems like they dont have meaningful business ties to ceramic besides a small grant (https://forum.ceramic.network/t/proposal-nounsid-data-and-identity-layer-for-nounsdao/560) and team members like al409 and baba (who Ive talked to regarding the prop) have been long-time community members so theres trust there, but I still ended up feeling a bit uneasy about the orientation of this prop. I also relate to deployers comments. I dont know if all the stuff here is really stuff we want / need.
0 references
appreciate the work put in here but feel similarly to wilson
0 references
love the effort but going from 5 ETH to 47 ETH seems like a bit of a stretch to me here given the limited traction we had last year...
0 references
