0xe412186a1865c4fe54a79e0adcb08b81233df674 (Q441)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0xe412186a1865c4fe54a79e0adcb08b81233df674 |
Individual |
Statements
Great prop; looking forward to updates from the team.
0 references
The content from Nounish is extremely high quality and its important for us to maintain continuity. I’m looking forward to seeing Nounish tell new stories and capture more attention for Nouns. I do want to see distribution improve and the team has convinced me they have a plan.
0 references
Perfect timing to name our new Noun. Looking forward to seeing “JellO” become official. Nice work, Digital!
0 references
I think this is a big spend for the DAO with an uncertain return. Regardless, this project seems like one we probably want to roll the dice on. The proposer clearly is passionate about HW design and has some proof of work (e.g., Zora collab). I think the initial ID of the keychain is a great start, but I hope Nouners can have some influence in the final design. A tangible accessory like this seems like it could be a conversation starter and eventual proliferation medium for Nouns. The proposer understands the importance of returning some funds to the DAO treasury. I appreciate that they are explicitly setting terms in the prop and there is some (albeit uncertain) path for the DAO to recoup some of our investment.
0 references
A truly decentralized collective like Nouns having a centralized “sponsored” discord seems like a dissonant concept at first glance. However, I think a centralized meeting ground for the community would actually help us grow by providing: a common meeting ground for Nouns DAO, an onramp for people curious about Nouns, an interface for sub-DAOs (e.g., Lil Nouns), and a space for feedback on proposals in preparation. At the end of the day, really solid proposals for awesome ideas is what we want to fund—perhaps some community, timely feedback, and advice will help us shape amazing future work. The essential elements of a good community meeting ground exist in The Jungle, but it does need a spark to really be a hit. I’m optimistic that with some dedicated effort, we can build a nice community home on the internet together.
0 references
AutoBidder provides an interface for the DAO to acquire new Nouns with parameters (e.g., MaxBid) we agree on. The contract has already successfully bid and acquired nouns for Lil Nouns and Wizards DAO. I think it makes sense to try this out with Nouns proper.
0 references
This is a great prop. The ask is clear and I appreciate other sources of funds were sought. Nouns would be helping fill the gap to make the new skatepark possible. This prop provides the DAO an opportunity to leave a *skateable* artifact in Long Beach and simultaneously benefit the local community by revamping their dated skatepark. I expect the grindable noggles will appear in many future skate clips, providing architecture for skateboard performance art and perhaps the start of a viral conversation about Nouns.
0 references
Clearly we should get our contracts audited. One thing not mentioned in the prop, but I hope to see: sharing of the audit results.
0 references
I want to see Nouns break into culture. I think tapping into art and the art scene is a great way to make this happen. I’m impressed by Artmatr’s custom tech and collaboration so far with Nouns. I’m supportive of this experiment and I’m betting the Artmatr team will exceed expectations.
0 references
Prop #285 revealed some communication and consistency issues from this team, and as a result, I do not feel comfortable funding this. Comments from the previous prop pasted below. —— I’m voting against this prop. This conference seems pretty generic as far as NFT/ tech conferences go and I question how much value Nouns will get out of a sponsored presence. That being said, communication from the conference and proposing team has been *inconsistent* at best. One of the biggest issues I noticed was 1/3 of the prop money ($30k) would go to a conference “sponsorship” and I still can’t figure out what we would get for that sponsorship. In the conference brochure there isn’t a $30k sponsorship package listed, although the team claims they were able to negotiate with “inner web3 circle” for a better deal. The sponsorship packages listed in the provided brochure are: $12k, $20k, $40k, $80k, and $200k. So what do we get for our $30k sponsorship exactly? One member of the team mentioned they negotiated the $80k package down to $30k, another member said we are getting the $200k package for $30k. I’m still left trying to figure out what we get for a $30k sponsorship and how can we verify this? I requested that the team provide an invoice or some documentation of this $30k sponsorship package and what comes with it, but as of this vote I have not received this. There are also inconsistent metrics cited for expected number of attendees. In the prop text, the proposing team claims 30,000 attendees are expected, but then in provided conference graphics the claim is 40,000 attendees are expected. I think there is enough inconsistency in statements from the team, provided graphics, and plans for spending our investment that we should not grant these funds.
0 references
I’m voting against this prop. This conference seems pretty generic as far as NFT/ tech conferences go and I question how much value Nouns will get out of a sponsored presence. That being said, communication from the conference and proposing team has been *inconsistent* at best. One of the biggest issues I noticed was 1/3 of the prop money ($30k) would go to a conference “sponsorship” and I still can’t figure out what we would get for that sponsorship. In the conference brochure there isn’t a $30k sponsorship package listed, although the team claims they were able to negotiate with “inner web3 circle” for a better deal. The sponsorship packages listed in the provided brochure are: $12k, $20k, $40k, $80k, and $200k. So what do we get for our $30k sponsorship exactly? One member of the team mentioned they negotiated the $80k package down to $30k, another member said we are getting the $200k package for $30k. I’m still left trying to figure out what we get for a $30k sponsorship and how can we verify this? I requested that the team provide an invoice or some documentation of this $30k sponsorship package and what comes with it, but as of this vote I have not received this. There are also inconsistent metrics cited for expected number of attendees. In the prop text, the proposing team claims 30,000 attendees are expected, but then in provided conference graphics the claim is 40,000 attendees are expected. I think there is enough inconsistency in statements from the team, provided graphics, and plans for spending our investment that we should not grant these funds.
0 references
I want to recognize the effort required in bringing this proposal to the DAO, but we can’t drop clothing that looks like this. None of these designs resonate with me.
0 references
I appreciate Nounlius for putting together this prop. However, I don’t think we need to reduce max quorum at this time. The DAO isn’t struggling to pass proposals; in fact, we are passing a reasonable amount: 11/15 recent proposals passed, even proposals with a lot of against votes (e.g., Prop 271) [1]. This parameter was just updated less than a month ago. I think we should allow sufficient time to observe how governance behavior and proposal outcomes are effected by updates to dynamic quorum. [1] https://twitter.com/TM0B1L/status/1655746375676510209
0 references
I think a crypto-native mobile OS sounds like a good idea on paper for folks like us who are into crypto, but in practice I don’t expect ethOS to meet the requirements and experience expectations of the modern user.
0 references
I don’t think we should use treasury funds to signal political affiliations. We are onchain—the signal of our support is clear and demonstrated through our behavior, this donation seems superfluous.
0 references
I appreciate the aspirations of proliferating Nouns in this prop, but I question the reach of a game like this and think the timeline + cost are not a good value for the DAO.
0 references
I was afraid to cast this vote. I was thinking to myself, “TM0B1L, you’re new to Nouns the last thing you want to do is publicly vote against 4156 and the Nounders.” That being said, I would not be true to myself if I did not vote against this prop. I’m surprised that so many people who voted FOR consider $50k to be a good value and/or will yield the kind of attention we need on Nouns DAO. In short, I question the (1) value and (2) effective proliferation that will be yielded by this work. (1) I don’t think a book like this should cost ~$50k. Perhaps I’m missing something but if distribution was part of this $50k ask then I think it would make more sense. Once we pay and eventually the book is released, what is the plan to get it out there (e.g., schools, book stores, social media, etc.)? (2) I question how far the reach of this book will be and I expect the primary consumers of it are already in Nouns. For example, Wilson mentioned reading this to his kid — that’s cute and you should, Wilson! <3 Nouns is still somewhat of a secret cult, even mainstream ETH heads don’t really know what Nouns is or what we’re doing. The kind of proliferation we need for Nouns is to break into the larger attention market, not have a few people read a digital children’s book.
0 references
I appreciate what the team built here and I encourage them to keep building archives.wtf out for those who find value in it. I question the utility of the site myself when I put myself in the shoes of an end-user. To be honest, I wouldnt use the site but its totally possible that Im not the target audience for it. Good luck Voadz and team!
0 references
I’m voting against this proposal. I appreciate the goal of this prop: to increase brand awareness for Nouns; however, I don’t think a run of wet wipes will actually break through and get the quantity and quality of awareness for Nouns that we strive for. The ask is actually pretty small and I think Noun 426 and 587 are respectable for not requesting an obscene amount of funds, but I question the sustainability of this effort and the return for the DAO. Sustainability: Once this run of wipes is manufactured and possibly sold, how does this move forward perpetually? Will there be another prop for more funds to make more wipes? Return: I noticed the prop includes renumeration; why wouldn’t these funds go back to the DAO and/or used to facilitate sustainability of the effort?
0 references
