0x86030dbbce1c771ff6622c20455cd3619aa93c05 (Q494)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0x86030dbbce1c771ff6622c20455cd3619aa93c05 |
Individual |
Statements
56
9999: I appreciate the transparent approach this pod is taking for reviewing and publishing the result of their decisions. However, I am dismayed at the on-going cost to administer the pod. I understand that getting systems and processes up and running requires additional time, and that these management fees take this into account, but hopefully once processes are streamlined this pod will take less human time to administer and the costs can be reduced. I look forward to seeing what projects DCS finds and funds. devcarrot: I propose we vote yes on the DCS pod. I’m excited to see more methods of getting funded and especially within the Prop House/NSFW to Proposal gap. The ask seems like a reasonable amount and would like to see additional funding of the group if they’re able to fund good projects. I share 9999’s concerns but will be good to increase our sample size and experiment with the model more.
0 references
44
We do not agree that Nouns DAO has a need for secret voting and believe secret voting in Nouns DAO would be detrimental to its culture and brand. The only justification for this mandated round appears to be research for Nouns DAO. As we disagree with the need for this research, we don’t believe in directing funding to it. There may be other groups which benefit from this research, and we welcome a new proposal that outlines their need and requests appropriate funding.
0 references
48
devcarrot: I recommend we vote against this. The main issue I have is that this creates a man-in-the-middle attack vector either by whomever is operating the platform or any defects in the software thats used and a false sense of security. Skiff may be interesting as it encrypts skiff-to-skiff emails (in this case emails sent between `@nouns.email` users) and incoming emails at rest but it doesnt magically grant the user the ability to have encrypted communications with all emails sent and received; emails from, to, and including non-Skiff users are still sent in plaintext. I believe the prop made this detail ambiguous at best. Im also concerned around a centralized location for Nouners emails, this would be an attractive target for attackers. I wish the Skiff team the best and would personally be interested in playing with their platform, but I dont believe this proposal should pass due to the ambiguity around privacy.
0 references
57
Seneca: While I like the enthusiasm and appreciate the teams effort to put this forth, the proposed outcomes feel vague. If the end goal is to get builders funded - Id much rather see the team pursue a small amount of funding to run their own grants program. This way, it is much easier to measure success while also allowing the team to find/consult with builders. 9999: The team is passionate and well placed to execute on this idea. I think it’s reasonable to get funds to test out a consultancy/incubator on a small scale, but I dislike subsidizing this entirely for 3 months when there’s an obvious business model. In general, I am for the consultancy model and believe it can bring qualified builders to the DAO. To that end, the market has the ability to signal whether the PropBox idea/team/approach works and funding to the extent requested would distort this process. In addition to reducing the timeline and funding amount, I would recommend voting for this proposal if it had target metrics: 1 month, interface with 10-15 builders, target 1-2 amazing on-chain proposal, include a “finders fee” to subsidize the funding gap. devcarrot: I agree with the other Nounders that there should be a market for this type of advising that takes the form of a finders fee or tip. I would like to see this proposal changed to either include more discrete objectives or, as Aubtoshi mentioned, expanded to be a source of earlier funding. During the Agora debate it was brought up that a place for builders and proposal authors are able to gain some clout, PropBox could be a way to incubate those with potential and build better proposals along the way.
0 references
53
4156: 1. i don’t love the precedent it sets around managing treasury funds. i see no reason that withdrawing 500 ETH from the treasury and converting it to 750k USDC in advance is helpful in procuring a partnership with mr. beast. it exposes the treasury to volatility risk for something that is low probability, and placing this much capital in a 2/3 multisig without a compelling reason to do so is a bad practice. 2. while this proposal increases the probability that people will attempt to form partnerships with mr. beast, it also decreases the probability that he will accept these partnership offers. in the worst case, the large bounty on solicitation could lead to undesirable sales tactics, and preclude the possibility of future partnerships. guerrilla tactics are helpful when the dao and its potential partners have little to lose, but will be less effective when attempting to partner with celebrities with large audiences who are sensitive to reputation risk, especially when the offer is coming from a strange entity like a DAO. a gentle introduction from a trusted mr. beast associate is probably the most likely road to a productive and long term relationship 9999: Its exciting to see a different proposal format and new ideas for engaging people outside of the community. I think the proposal specifics are a bit too much, too fast, but feel theres potential that some form of this works on a smaller scale.
0 references
52
devcarrot: I recommend we vote No on this proposal because Nouns Builder is early in its lifecycle and I havent seen much firm information on the charter or direction for Nouns Builder DAO in regards to what its treasury should be used for aside from generalize-able Nounish tooling. At the same time, the new Nouns Builder DAO would have a risk of fund extraction. Even though a veto power exists, this power comes with a coordination cost if secured correctly. Having a large imbalance between the auction proceeds and the DAOs treasury early on in the process feels dangerous to me. Id be amenable if this were a smaller initial seed, the NounsDAO were to follow on by amplifying proposals/prop-house rounds/grant pools/etc. after the Nouns Builder DAO is formed, or the NounsDAO were to purchase Nouns Builder DAO votes during the auction. 9999: Thanks to Zora for effort and dedication to building with Nouns. I’m voting against because I feel this proposal and Builder DAO itself need refinements before an ask of this size. My concerns are these: If this tool truly needs to be a DAO the market will signal as such using the auction price of its governing NFTs. Just like all other Nounish DAOs, Builder should grow its community and treasury from natural demand and develop its ecosystem with people who understand its vision. If the tool is not meant to be a DAO, then with no proven track-record, the ask for 1000ETH to jump-start demand is overkill. All other large scale, long-term projects/pods have started small and demonstrated demand before asking for outsized funding (See [Prop House Protocol: Public Infrastructure by Nouns DAO](https://discourse.nouns.wtf/t/prop-house-protocol-public-infrastructure-by-nouns-dao/1594) as cited in this proposal). Builder currently has no metrics to match the size of this ask. The Zora team should decide which approach to take. If the former, it doesn’t make sense to come to Nouns DAO for a treasury injection. If the latter, the project should first gather momentum before an ask of this size can be considered a hell yes. Thanks again.
0 references
