0x3cbd57da2f08b3268da07e5c9038c11861828637 (Q461)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0x3cbd57da2f08b3268da07e5c9038c11861828637 |
Individual |
Statements
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I understand the debates on both sides — that archiving is a valuable public good, but that there may not be enough demand for it. I also understand that, since there was prior funding, the DAO is more hesitant to fund something unless it grows as a public good and accumulates more users. I don’t feel that I have a good grasp on the history of the proposal, so I do not feel confident making a decision. But I will add some point of meta-comment: Individual ideas here are really interesting, such as the Nouns Zine or the Prop House round for funding cover artworks. Splitting these out into their own proposals could be a great way to allow the DAO to pick and choose individual public goods to fund. At the same time, I understand that proposal revisions and the constant “If only there was one more thing…” type of feedback is not particularly helpful, so I know that you may not want to act on it.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I am strongly in favor of this proposal. Ethereum’s core values include censorship resistance, and that is something very few groups are willing to fund. Ensuring that MEV relayers are neutral is key as more and more organizations consolidate on a small number of relayers. In addition, Ultra Round Relay is a good example of something that other organizations won’t fund. Nouns is the perfect group in the ecosystem to fund this. One detail of the prop that I would have liked to see is some kind of promotion that Ultra Sound Relay gives Nouns. This could range from a simple “Sponsored by Nouns ⌐◨-◨” to something fun, like special callouts for blocks with Nouns Graffiti. The prop points to goodwill and attention generated by these donations, which is true but attention is often brief. I’d love to see something more ongoing in collaboration with Ultra Sound Relay. Given that Noun 40 has been in communication with the Ultra Sound Relay team, I don’t see this as necessary in the prop, but it would be nice to follow up when the prop is completed. This kind of promotion is a way to continue to attract people with Ethereum’s values to Nouns, and it is important for ideological alignment. One important note: Given the liability considerations around OFAC, I am voting “Abstain” rather than “For.” DAOs badly need solutions to limit liability for voters, but the aggressive interpretation taken by regulators makes it harder to take this risk. Allowing voters to freely express speech without significant concerns for the liability surrounding those actions is important, and something I’ve been personally researching and would love to bring to Nouns. While I continue this research, I will vote “Abstain.” I sincerely hope that we can figure out approaches that would allow me to freely vote “For.”
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” A few things to be clear about upfront: I am a big fan of TWAMM and have talked with the CronFi team a few times over the past couple of years In general, I am concerned about the dominance of liquid staking protocols and believe that diversification is important At the same time, my reasoning here is the same as my reasoning for Prop 313: Treasury management is a slippery slope. Swapping to rETH makes sense, but what happens when there are other liquid staking protocols proposed? What about Eigenlayer? The biggest danger for a DAO is to focus more on treasury management than using the treasury. Its a trap that many DAOs fall into, and I hope that Nouns does not go down the same path. Noun 40s reasoning about diversification is thoughtful and being willing to support new protocols benefits the ecosystem. I agree with its reasoning in isolation - taken in the context of this proposal, its spot on. My worry is around sending a signal that Nouns is open to further treasury management proposals, especially following so quickly after 313. For that reason, I abstain. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
I like the idea of positive sum collaborations throughout the ecosystem, but I have two issues with the way this prop is conducted: 1. (Minor issue) The funds are going to pay for a speculative element - gold plated penguins - in a way that is not very Nounish 2. (Major issue) The whole point of CC0 culture is that its permissionless. You dont need to ask for permission to collaborate! You just go ahead. There are lots of ways that this proposal could have received support from Nouns without spending money on gold plated penguins. For example, an NFT issued by the DAO that is mintable to represent the collaboration would be wonderful. Or a retroactive funding proposal, after the project has already launched. I love ecosystem collaborations, but asking for permission to use CC0 content does not feel very CC0, and asking for funds for gold plated penguins does not feel very Nounish. I dont want to stop this from happening, so I am abstaining rather than voting against, but I would encourage the DAO to seek more CC0 and Nounish collaborations in the future. Small tweaks to this proposal would be a significant improvement. CC0 culture requires permissionless remixing, and I encourage other future ecosystem collaboration proposals to look for more CC0-native models (such as mintable commemorative NFTs and retroactive funding proposals). *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I love these running clubs as literal gathering places. Bringing people together in person based on an intersection of shared values — Nouns and running — is a wonderful way to create connection. Pairing this with conferences is a smart way to focus on a crypto segment, while non-conference related running clubs can bring new people in who may be new to Nouns. I don’t run personally, but I see the value of the community that these clubs create. Strong yes.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Most of my votes as a delegate focus on the “public goods” part of my thesis. This one is more unique, since it focuses on the “gathering place” part of the thesis. Explaining what Nouns does is extremely important. Even within Nouns, there are differing visions of the goal: A space for public goods? A meme to proliferate? A treasury that should focus on growth? When Nouns itself has so many different visions, it becomes especially important to synthesize and explain those visions to the world. As someone who’s worked on explaining complex spaces like DAOs from scratch, I know that this is really, really hard. Getting the messaging right, finding the right balance between simplicity and nuance, and then getting the content out into the world takes a long time. It’s a full-time job, and not one that is easy to decentralize. Just like how crypto startups shouldn’t decentralize before they have product-market fit, crypto media shouldn’t decentralize before they have “narrative-market fit”. I understand the desire to decentralize. I understand the concern about reach. I understand the hesitation about the size of the ask. But the reality is that, in my opinion, it’s too early for those things. Nouns needs to figure out how to tell its story, and frankly it’s not very good at it right now. Before we add many narratives and styles into the mix — which we should! — we should try to get one right. Let’s see what Nounish produces, give them time to accomplish the huge task in front of them, and then fund even more voices. Their content is easy to discover and remix — that is already a foundation for others to build on top of. The decentralization and reach will come in due time. It took half a decade for people to begin to understand what a DAO was. And then suddenly, it clicked for people all at once. Nouns is on a similar journey. Let’s give Nounish the time and resources to grow. This won’t take months. It will take years. Let’s give them the ability to make this happen.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Easy yes. Let’s create drops of more great content.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” The way the proposal points to composability makes it a yes. They can be incorporated into other Nouns-related initiatives, whether it’s meetups or media. If things go right, this can become an ecosystem that people mix and match, with this collection being one of the many styles. I wish that these were CC0 or made their process available for others to replicate. Having a lower-quality, CC0 version that can be remixed and 3D printed at home would be amazing. I would strongly encourage the team to submit a proposal that includes the ability to more easily remix and 3D print, to see bottom up proliferation of the mini figures. In the future, I would recommend that Nouns focuses on this a funding requirement to help further public goods. This group has already done good work, so I am voting for.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” My analysis of funding requests is: 1. Is this a public good? 2. Is this public good something that other organizations won’t fund, or that Nouns is uniquely best to fund? This proposal wants to build a sustainable, profitable business. Which is excellent! But it’s not building a public good. Likewise, there are many outlets for funding CPG branding plays, though they do often require some upfront capital. This proposal also feels like a “proliferate the meme” type of proposal, which is fun and interesting, but doesn’t serve public goods. For this reason, I was tempted to vote Against. At the same time, as I was analyzing this proposal, I began to think of all of the ways this brand could serve public goods-oreineted goals. The design contest is an obvious starting point. Inviting artists to participate, and ideally having commissions or a portion of the profits flow back to them, is one way. The community contributions are strong here, showing that this brand is already acting as a gathering place. It could also help other groups bootstrap knowledge in building CPG brands. Ideally, the team could aid other groups wanting to launch Nouns-related CPG projects. In the long run, fewer of these projects would need to be funded by the DAO and could instead be funded by an ecosystem of self-sustaining CPG brands. For this reason, my inclination is to say yes to experimentation. I’d want to wait and see how this plays out before approving similar props. Does this end up as a community driven CPG initiative? If so, amazing! Does this continue forever as a self-sustaining wet wipes business business? A wonderful thing, but probably something that should have been funded by other venues. I am in favor of this proposal, but would want to wait for results before voting for similar proposals in the future. My favorite design is Option A.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Meetups are an important way to introduce people to the great sides of crypto culture. When a meetup exists as a gathering place, especially a neutral one that is not trying to sell anything, it can lead to excellent results. It’s often hard to get sponsorship for meetups. Companies may sponsor to sell their own products, but finding sponsorship for meetups that act as a more neutral gathering place is difficult. The amount of funding is pretty similar to the amounts required by much smaller scale meetups. Even though it’s a large amount, it goes a long way to make Nouns as gathering place for public goods.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Mobile operating systems are a duopoly. Many attempts to fund alternatives have failed. The primary alternatives tend to have very specific backers who are pushing forward their interests, and arent creating a neutral space for experimentation. That is why its even more important for Nouns to fund an open source, crypto-focused operating system as a public good. Hardware and operating systems are extremely hard. They require a lot of capital, far more than this prop is requesting. Nouns should give this initiative a small push and keep it going, to help incubate it for when its ready for substantial funding. We cant solve everything, but we can do our part.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Funding crypto regulatory advocacy is an excellent example of a public good. It is something that benefits the entire ecosystem, and it is something that many groups won’t fund. This funding is especially powerful coming from a more neutral organization like Nouns. Advocacy from VC funds and companies is excellent and their work is incredibly important, but Nouns serves a special role by decoupling its advocacy from direct financial interests. This advocacy also benefits Nouns and other DAOs, which lack significant amounts of regulatory clarity. I understand concerns by Scott and others that regulatory advocacy is off-mission (https://twitter.com/scott_lew_is/status/1652699651265503233). Those concerns are thoughtful, and I agree that Nouns is not and should not be an advocacy organization for regulatory change. At the same time, I draw a strong distinction between funding advocacy and directly participating in advocacy. Funding advocacy in my mind is on-mission as a public good, but participating in advocacy is likely something that the existing advocacy groups can do far better than Nouns. As long as Nouns sticks to funding only, advocacy can be an effective public good. That being said, I wish this proposal was stronger in its advocacy for Nouns PR. In my opinion, Nouns is not aggressive enough in advertising its donations, and that hinders it from attracting people and acting as a beacon for public goods. Claiming the top spot on the leaderboard is a good start, but I wish the proposal went further on advocating for Nouns publicity. A few things that I wish were addressed in the proposal: 1. Nouns would be putting up 50% of the funding for the crypto advocacy round (Coinbase put up the other $100K, with the rest being direct donations from users), but the description on the Gitcoin Grants Round only states that “Coinbase is on a mission to advocate for digital asset policies here in the United States, and this crypto advocacy round will support the amazing organizations who are leading the charge.” I would love a commitment from Coinbase and/or Gitcoin to include Nouns in the description of the advocacy round if this proposal passes. Coinbase, Gitcoin, and Nouns are stronger together! This is a collaboration I’d love to see. 2. I wish that
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I’ve gone back and forth on this proposal quite a bit. My analysis of funding requests is: 1. Is this a public good? 2. Is this public good something that other organizations won’t fund, or that Nouns is uniquely best to fund? Writing about the Nouniverse is not necessarily a public good, but public domain writing about Nouns is. Public domain writing, just like CC0 art or freely licensed code, is composable. While the ways it could be remixed may be less obvious, its equally important as other forms of composable creative work. My other lens is whether this is something that other organizations wont fund. There are many established pathways to funding books, even if they are admittedly hard to access. Nouns is also not uniquely suited to funding novels. But at the same time, these established pathways are less accessible for public domain works, which the proposal points out forgoes revenue opportunities. (That is why many books choose CC BY-NC-SA as their license, to ensure that the work is able to be shared freely by readers but not used commercially). The concerns that other voters brought up around the size of the ask and the fact that there are other established pathways for funding books are valid. At the same time, public domain composability for books is an important experiment. While I dont yet know what composability will result from this book, I believe that its a good experiment for Nouns. I am in support of this proposal, but would be more hesitant to vote for similar proposals until we see how the benefits of public domain composability play out for Nouns-related books. (I would also note that I did read both chapters in full prior to making a decision, and I quite liked them. Though their quality is necessary but not sufficient for my support.)
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Funding art is a public good, and helping people understand Nouns increases its ability to act as a gathering place. While this is a large ask, its necessary for high quality. I am in support. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Id emphasize the gathering place portion of this proposal. Noggles acts as a starting point for in person conversation and helping people understand Nouns. I agree with Noun 40s concerns about overallocation and I also believe that there could be more intentionality in building bridges via the distribution of the Noggles. But overall I am in support to help people gather around Nouns. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” This is such an easy yes. Voter.wtf is a public good that supports the Nouns community and eventually the broader ecosystem. Would love for Voter.wtf to act as the foundation for standardizing voteWithReason throughout the DAO governance ecosystem. So much potential, glad to support it after such a useful MVP. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Funding artists is clearly a public good! I love that this prop supports artists while also introducing new people to Nouns. Getting more artists involved in Nouns is something that I would love to see, and creating a positive perception of Nouns + crypto among adjacent communities (artists + comic fans) benefits the whole industry. This is especially true among groups that historically have viewed crypto negatively and should have an introduction to it in a positive light. The prop doesn’t specify whether the commissions themselves will also be CC0, and instead talks about the artists being introduced to CC0 work. 100 CC0 commissions would be nice as a base for the Nouns community to build on top of! But that decision is one that I trust the team with. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” Securing Nouns while funding independent auditors for a public audit report is clearly a public good. Easy yes!
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I agree with Wilson and Krels reasoning here. This is a bet on 5OC to produce something interesting and to make Nouns into a gathering place for hardware hobbyists. I dont think that this makes sense for every solo staker, nor do I think that the market is necessarily a good one to be in given the competition from Raspberry Pi and others. Noun40 and Jihad both have thoughtful points here that we should pay attention to. At the same time, I believe that the value of a gathering place around hardware outweighs the downsides of the use case and the market. Hardware hackers are a very public goods oriented community that is filled with hobbyists. Id love to see them join the Nouns ecosystem, and I see this proposal as a first step to doing so. Even if this proposal doesnt pass, I hope that my and other For votes act as encouragement for hardware hobbyists to join Nouns.
0 references
Love the extensive prior work before requesting funding. Also seems like a good introduction to the genuine, non-speculative sides of crypto via POAPs and other initiatives. CC0 culture is a valuable idea to spread too. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
Coffee shops are the perfect example of bottom up gathering places. Would love to see what emerges from this. Feels very organic. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
These are the public goods and community minded values that Nouns stands for. Its an excellent introduction to the positive sides of crypto. Strong yes. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I fully support bringing Nouns to more people around the world. That is an excellent and important goal. But that is a slow process, and one that takes time. Nouns needs translation before it can start to do promotion. This proposal misses the mark by focusing on promotion and advertising so early on. We shouldn’t spend on ads before growing organically. When communities are new and delicate, they should grow slowly before trying to ramp up. Any localized version of Nouns will inherently be fragile at the start, if it is seeking to build a strong community. I would support a proposal only for translation, which is a small fraction of the requested budget. I don’t support marketing before this takes place for a long time. Ad spend is the wrong way to grow Nouns and misses the mark. Let’s help people around the world understand Nouns first, and they will find us when they align with the mission.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” My analysis of funding requests is: 1. Is this a public good? 2. Is this public good something that other organizations won’t fund, or that Nouns is uniquely best to fund? While the idea is fun and interesting, I don’t see a situation where it needs upfront funding from the DAO. Selling NFTs for pre-orders or pursuing other funding models and letting demand come bottom-up seems ideal. This has an excellent established path to funding that doesn’t require upfront payments from the DAO. I like the idea, but I don’t think that Nouns is uniquely best positioned to fund it. It would be helpful to have more examples of which components are CC0. The proposal refers to it as a CC0 clothing brand, but it mentions using CC0 assets rather than making new CC0 assets. If the brand itself created CC0 elements in addition to leveraging CC0 elements, that would be very intriguing.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” To be clear, I absolutely love on-chain experimentation. I love new projects in on-chain naming and on-chain social. Im excited for the way this space is rapidly expanding. This adoption, however, should come bottom-up and not top-down. Nouners naming their Nouns? Great! A proposal for Nouns DAO to name its Noun? Feels like using the DAO for advertising. The attention of voters and delegates is scarce. Gas fees per prop creates a real cost. Time spent analyzing proposals like this takes time away from proposals that encourage Nouns to fund a public good. I love the initiative, but a DAO proposal doesnt feel like the time or the place. Theres nothing about this that should require the buy-in of the full DAO, when individual Nouners naming their Nouns serves the same purpose. Approving this sets a bad precedent of groups that want to use Nouns for advertising. Its easy to say that this prop is fun, but approving it means well get 10 more just like it.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” My analysis of funding requests is: 1. Is this a public good? 2. Is this public good something that other organizations won’t fund, or that Nouns is uniquely best to fund? This game, while potentially enjoyable art, is not a public good. It is not CC0 or freely licensed, and it cant be easily remixed by other Nouns supporters. It is a business that may be successful and sustainable in its own right. That is excellent! There are many great venues for funding this, from venture capital to grants programs within the games industry to crowdfunding. The authors themselves point to crowdfunding as a potential option for fundraising for this game. But since there are many potential funding sources outside of Nouns, I dont believe that Nouns should find this. As a result, I dont believe that this proposal is something that Nouns is uniquely suited to fund. I agree with Jihad that retroactive funding could be appropriate if this benefits Nouns, but I dont believe that Nouns should kickstart this. I would also reconsider this if the game were freely licensed and provided a building block for others to make Nounish games too. As it stands, other funding venues are likely more appropriate.
0 references
A quick summary of my thesis as a delegate: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I feel strongly that Nouns should not have a namespace that distinguishes between “canonical” projects and all other projects. Once a project is viewed as canonical, it will be hard to dislodge. Nouns should have a healthy ecosystem where projects naturally form and die. This allows contributors to step up, and just as importantly allows contributors to move on. Much of this perspective is influenced by the Loot community, where projects viewed as “canonical” had significantly more sway among users than equivalent projects that were not viewed as “canonical”. If Nouns begins to bless certain projects with a canonical namespace, it will take energy away from non-canonical projects. One simple hypothetical: What if Agora had a canonical namespace at nouns.agora.eth but House of Nouns did not? Is Agora now more “official” than House of Nouns? Should we bless more projects with official namespaces, to put them on a level playing field? What happens when those projects evolve, sometimes in ways that an official namespace would not like? This is a slippery slope and I am opposed for that reason. As a courtesy, I registered nounsautobidder.eth and autobiddernouns.eth under my ENS at Papper.eth (also the owner, not the manager, of this ENS). I am happy to transfer these ENS domains to the team, and I am disappointed and a bit surprised that the team did not protect these ENS names prior to putting this proposal up. Canonical namespaces are a slippery slope, so let’s stick to non-canonical ones while norms develop.
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” DAOs should be bottom-up, not top-down. Nouns should not fund a Nouns game publisher. Instead, Nouns should use the excellent existing mechanisms (like Prop House that the proposal references) to let ideas get funded in a more distributed fashion. I would support a subset of this prop, like the CC0 game asset toolkit. But right now this prop feels like everything but the kitchen sink. It should be broken up into separate smaller proposals, so that Nouns can decide on each piece and do what it does best. Also not a fan of the proposals framing of Nouns gaming efforts as an investment. Nouns should be funding public goods that benefit the ecosystem without any expectation of return. Nouns should not be trying to make gaming investments - there are many existing sources of capital for that. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.” I agree with the points here that treasury risk management should be handled via the ETH to stETH ratio, not via buying peg protection. I also think that, while this proposal itself is relatively small and low risk, it opens the door to more complicated treasury management techniques. DAO treasury management is a slippery slope. As soon as opportunities for more yield (or alternatively, further hedges) come up, it begins to consume the DAO. Similar to Wilson’s reasoning, if we buy peg protection, what comes next? This is an example of this slippery slope, where techniques gradually grow more and more complicated. Eventually, the complexity grows to the point where it can threaten the security of the DAO’s treasury. (Not with this proposal, which is quite reasonable and helps the security of the treasury, but only in proposals that go further down the slippery slope.) We should draw a line at staking ETH in Lido. If we wanted peg protection, holding stablecoins would likely be a better hedge, given how much a catastrophic stETH depeg would impact the price of ETH. I have a lot of respect for the work that Cozy Finance is doing, and I also believe that an audit of the L1Proxy is likely useful for the industry. But I would prefer that those funding requests are separate from treasury management techniques. I am voting No because the slippery slope of treasury management — as much as I like the specific project, I view it as risky to set a precedent of active treasury management and yield/hedge chasing. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
