0x55b0a25d697647281553a177321dad0a0bf9a148 (Q396)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0x55b0a25d697647281553a177321dad0a0bf9a148 |
Individual |
Statements
Not mad on the font itself (personal preference) nor this method for deciding THE font....not that I think there need to be one tbh This is a hobby thing and doesnt require a roadmap or funding for 18 eth. If for whatever reason people think we do need a new font (I dont) ... run a prop house round (I probably wouldnt)
0 references
$250k to design and manufacture 50 boards does not make sense to me. $5k per board - 40 of which are handed out for proliferation purposes. After it is done, then what? We fund the manufacture of 3k to 5k boards based on this small sample? I do not think people are going to choose to run many nodes on these micro boards and if they are I do not think they will choose to do so on a board designed and developed by a lone builder with no practical experience in commercial hardware development or manufacturing logistics. I do not think its in any way realistic to try and compete against Raspberry Pi, BeagleBoards, Arduinos or Odroids and the other dedicated manufacturers that have spent many years and millions of $ on R&D, supply chain mgmt and distribution. This is not an effective use of treasury funds imo
0 references
Reasons posted here: https://twitter.com/0Hindsight/status/1657856004762025990 tl:dr - Continued spend on content at the rate of $2m annualised does not make sense if people are not seeing it, and they are not. While Nounish have created good material for the DAO to use but this is a big ask on top of the $1.5m already spent. Nothing against what the team has done so far but without distribution, its hard to justify at this moment. Would perhaps support something that is smaller with a cost that is more appropriate considering the current environment and has a strong focus on distribution. Good luck.
0 references
ReVoteWithReason: I appreciate the proposers and their care for Nouns, but I feel we have funded a lot of things focused on IRL activations recently (262, 257, 251, 218, 206, 197) and I am still sort of waiting for the dust to settle/a clear assessment of our ROI there. In particular, I dont feel a need to fund more NFT event sponsorship/attendance/activation type stuff. Thanks again for your time and energy here!
0 references
While this seems to be a well written proposal I have no domain expertise in this area. Having read the exchanges between the proposer and a Noun holder who does have experience in the area I feel its right to listen to their opinion and concerns and vote No. (Also, its dry January and im off the booze)
0 references
I am not against funding Aubtoshi to continue NOTG. But Value Generated must be > Price Paid and scaling UP an effort to this size that cant clearly demonstrate the value created from the previous funding rounds doesnt make much sense. The follow up prop should be either the same size or smaller until a model is found that clearly works. On the ground activation efforts are difficult and this prop mentions using podcasts, video footage etc - but the Nouns on the Ground Twitter page has about 800 followers, the YouTube has 65 subscribers and the listenership to spaces is low too. I would like to see some targets for these things in the prop - as distribution matters if content is being created. (Maybe a landing page for NOTG or POAPs would be good too to measure attribution at some level) I would like to see a revised proposal at a more reasonable level and would also support additional (good) proposals or prop house rounds that leverage the decentralised community we have to give local teams an opportunity to activate more Nouners IRL. Generally speaking: A vote against a proposal is not a vote against a proposer. Voting no now is not voting no forever on everything. Its healthy to vote down proposals in order to give and integrate feedback.
0 references
Not against funding or paying for ideas or proposals. Somewhat against the size of the ask vs the size of the idea here and the proposer setting the price for their idea. Think we should come up with better mechanisms for doing this though.
0 references
A vote against a proposal is not a vote against the proposer or the project. It is healthy to say No sometimes too. Great to see another DAO that has achieved some level of self sustainability. Team seem passionate. 1. It does not make sense to seed other DAOs to this scale at this stage. I hear people saying we need to put our faith in Gami and the team but IF Gami is going to be deciding how these funds are deployed, that is a problem (as it means they have control of the DAO and distribution is not right). Otherwise we are putting our faith in gnarsdao token holders...10xing their treasury. Without fully understanding who they are (how could we) and the implications of doing so. (Of which I can think of many...but im not going to get into it here). Seeding other DAOs to this extent - that have not solved for some of the governance issues that Nouns has is not the way to scale. Like others I would be more open to a prop with a much smaller ask and more detail for how its planned to be deployed.
0 references
I might have voted yes on this if I was stoned when I watched the videos in the description. But im not high right now. So its a no.
0 references
Not mad on this proposal. Largely in agreement with this https://twitter.com/niftynaut/status/1600222829584125952?s=20&t=p1Dr9BauQh9vuIM8dCpkvw Essentially its paying the team (7 eth a month) to find and pay other people (5eth a month) to work part time to come up with proposals so we can fund them with more eth to do whatever they came up with? Directionally correct in the sense that im big time in favour of getting people outside of Nouns working on Nouns but i just dont think this has the right incentive structure, nor is it scalable and objectives are just not clear enough.
0 references
https://twitter.com/0Hindsight/status/1597224514714505216?s=20&t=MpS_QmTZBFgfPegGk8VpLQ - Can see this leading to a misalignment of incentives. - Dont think a consultancy for proposals is needed when we have nouns.centre and discourse as well as NFSW and DCS etc - It includes a 5eth retro reward and it looks like there will be a retro reward for the same thing by Nouncil (should have waited for clarity on that before posting)
0 references
I like what has been done so far but its too big an ask too soon with too vague a roadmap for what is essentially a task of proliferation and im not quite clear on the deliverables. I think this needs to be broken up and I actually think it is good that this comes at the same time as Prop 171 - which I think could fund this and get a bit more product market fit, using their guidance and support, and see where we are at after that. I appreciate the communications you have done and I have read what was said in the Nouncil chat. A rejection of this proposal is not a rejection of the work done so far. Keep it up.
0 references
reVoteWithReason from nounburger.eth > I commend Public Good for its achievements thus far, but I dont believe this is the best use of funds for taking the next step. It appears to be more of paid enthusiasm rather than strategic allocation. There are no mandatory guidelines for the breweries regarding what needs to be brewed; they are encouraged to brew the IPA but not required. There is also no commitment beyond the initial run. The only commitment seems to be the production of 500 cans of beer at a cost of $9 per can, while the actual production cost is no more than $1.5-2. Additionally, the beer is being sold by Narcose at a discounted price of $3.33 per can, resulting in a possible 8x markup on COGs, which is unheard of in the industry. As someone with beverage companies, I would have preferred to see a consolidation of the number of breweries, with a greater allocation of funds to each. Sourcing brewers who specialize in certain styles, funding them for the creation of custom recipes for the Public Good portfolio. Such an approach would result in a world-class CC0 beer range while still achieving expansion. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
reVoteWithReason from hot.4156.eth > its an interesting project that could be valuable to the ecosystem, but would like to see a more coherent demo before funding. everything from the domain name to the UI feels a bit sloppy. would vote FOR upon seeing a more substantial and thoughtful demo *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
You might call me fiscally conservative....but you will never call me unhygienic! Design C
0 references
Agree with having one day per week for reading and voting
0 references
Whether its implemented in Nouns or not (...provided someone can figure it out) this definitely would fall under the public goods category and would be a good feature for DAOs to have available to them. So its a yes from me. Im not smart enough to understand the implications of its implementation... I like using mandated Prop house rounds to onboard new brains into Nouns eco too. The way the Verbs guys have structured this with a bit of budget put aside to promote more entries is good too.
0 references
If we want to proliferate I think developing tools that allow for the deeper integration of social platforms and NFTs is a great way to do so… The examples given in the video are interesting (using NFTs as an entry mechanism to promote a desired action by targeted NFT holders) but I can imagine many more interesting use cases beyond that as the concept is iterated on… I view this as the a first step in the exploration of how we can combine Nouns with social platforms to amplify our voice. How it is used and iterated on will be important too. I would ask you look beyond the simple ‘markety’ example used for illustration in the prop and try to imagine what fun desired actions we would want people to take based on an incentive using a tool like this…ie sharing cool content we have created, prop house rounds etc Like the Mucho Love prop I also like how the proposers didn’t give up after rejection on a prop, took feedback from that no vote and come back with something better. It’s a great example and good to see happening. As I said in the prop I had never spoken to these guys before they asked me for feedback but after speaking to Nick they seem like dedicated guys who are building something novel. The type of people we want to keep working on Nounish tools imo
0 references
Had concerns about comp and also that this might be closer to a Nouns<>Private Company vs Nouns<> Public Goods funding round...Not that that is necessarily bad if structured right. But the team took time to answer questions in chat. Were willing to adapt to peoples feedback. Felt they answered questions best they could considering its unchartered territory. Tool could be v good for proliferation purposes regardless of anything. Playground stuff looks cool. So its a yes. Good luck
0 references
Well detailed proposal. The deliverables on this are clear at the end of the day: more Chinese nouners. So will be interesting to see how the guys get on.
0 references
Good breakdown. Well explained. Nice focus. Will be interesting to see the impact. Also like how the proposer integrated feedback from previous prop. Good precedent. Wish the team well if it succeeds.
0 references
This is an actual no brainer. Love this tool. Key piece of DAO infrastructure that is critical for scaling and activating new ideas, builders and communities. The value added to Nouns (and other DAOs) will be greater than the cost and in that sense i think it is already sustainable. Great example set with the abstained vote too.
0 references
I like the structure. Would be good to have some objectives in terms of distribution too. Will be interesting to see results.
0 references
I think this will be a valuable experiment in having a team deploy capital in what I think is an appropriate funding range for them to do so. It a good team who should be able to, between them, use this funds to: - Select good projects - Work with them and help them to build - Hold those projects accountable to the milestones they set (For example - this team could provide funding and support to projects like NNS (Prop 170) and others like it to help them grow to a point where they are ready for their own proposal - making the DAO more effective at deploying captial and giving Nouners more information about the viability of projects before we vote on them. ) - And at the end of the time period provide an assessment on the overall performance. Good experiment and a move in the right direction.
0 references
When asked what he thought Nounish meant 4156 said do good with no expectation of return, create positive externalities, embrace absurdity & difference, teach people about nouns & crypto, have fun We hope all of you think this is a Nounish proposal
0 references
Looks nice so far but dunno if im fully convinced by the model of how this is being done...works out at circa $3m+ by the time its finished... DAO will become pot committed by sooner rather than later so the decision and demonstration of how effective this spend will be needs to be sooner rather than later too... But worth a shot so voting yes. Would like to see how this is gonna get picked up or gets traction before voting yes on the next one probably. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
I do think people should allocate their budget and plan for noggles in their prop and there is a chance of wastage cause free but .... no waste no gain. Yes *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
Would pay another 10 eth if you set the default to Against.... you sneaky spend maxi bugger :) (Bloody thing throwing up an application error so I had to switch to nouns.wtf to vote....so this doubles as a support request)
0 references
I have no idea how this industry works at all and cant really assess the prop but a lot of people seem to like it so im abstaining. I am glad there is someone else in the DAO who is even more long winded in their replies than me :) I also have no idea why I am spending $15 in gas to abstain...
0 references
I created this proposal and although I do not financially benefit from it in any way - I will ABSTAIN. If any proposal NEEDS the votes of the proposer, or anyone that benefits from it to pass, it should not pass. In order to make better decisions and to avoid conflicts of interest it would be good for the DAO if the social consensus was for the proposer to abstain with any votes or delegated votes if the proposal benefits them in any way. The default for everyone else should be to vote no IF a proposer does vote for their own proposal that serves their interest. If a large voting block enforced this, it would become the social norm instantly. And we already have some social contracts on votes that are enforced (ie vote down any prop less than 20e in size to better scale on-chain prop flow) or have been suggested on other matters i.e https://twitter.com/punk4156/status/1600506671436300288
0 references
