0xe3d73daae939518c3853e0e8e532ae707cc1a436 (Q506)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0xe3d73daae939518c3853e0e8e532ae707cc1a436 |
Individual |
Statements
Creating more options for mechanisms for Nouns to issue payments is a net benefit even just to Nouns itself - should others fork the contract and use it for their own projects thats even better. Streaming payments based on time/milestones will be critical to Nouns supporting larger proposals that need to be chunked up. My only main concerns here are (1) what the competitive set of tools offer (like 0xSplits) and if they/others have similar solutions on roadmap, and (2) if there are better ways for this to be affiliated by Nouns (the website is cool, having Nouns graffiti in the contract code would be cooler). Regardless, I support the spirit of the proposal and hope it will improve the DAOs ability to allocate capital long term.
0 references
Generally positive on new ways to promote the nounish meme. Generally not tremendously interested in paid marketing for brand promotion as the best brands have organic promotion (Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I dont know which half.) However, open-sourcing the content and making everything made cc0 is valuable, and is the specific aspect that makes the proposal attractive.
0 references
Interchangeable heads and glasses - bullish physical composability.
0 references
Pros: The operating systems foundational role in any software makes it a ripe candidate to make cryptonative, so that other applications and services built on top can enjoy its architectural assumptions. In addition, even if this particular instantiation doesnt take off, the open source nature of the OS can promote some future project to build on top of a base. Cons: Skeptical that a new OS is what gets people to switch their current phone just for cryptonative benefits. Much more likely that dominant crypto adoption comes through app diversity in established OS app stores, or via browser functionality within a web3 app (like what Metamask does today). Net: Positive - Despite the visible difficulties of new OS adoption, if anyone can help fund a run on a new system its Nouns DAO. The proposal seems very aligned with the DAOs overall goals of promoting the nounish meme alongside contributing to the long term development of the crypto ecosystem. This is an experiment worth running, and the fact that the team has already been making progress is a positive signal - were helping a team thats already been helping themselves.
0 references
In support of using treasury resources to build and promote open source projects related to the Nouns ecosystem and brand. Open Source is the software version of CC0, and I think very aligned with the highest order goals of Nouns DAO. Generally in support of treasury resources going towards open source experiments creation of software & hardware.
0 references
Generally in favor of the principle of making contentious votes require greater overall participation from the whole community, and I think the mirror post does a good job explaining such. The open question I have is why not make something more gradient, as outlined in mirror post? I dont think its necessary for us to have to vote for each new threshold ad hoc - hopefully we can have a (potentially quadratic) algorithm to accomplish that dynamically. Id also throw in the idea that similar to a gradient for required consensus, we adopt a gradient for proposed funding. Again, I am for this proposal, but just wanted to offer some things to think about.
0 references
Support this proposal. I like that this is a tool that (1) has utility to the DAO (cool voter client), (2) introduces new stuff for us to play with (likes, non-Noun voting, and other mechanics make this feel social, which is what voting is all about), (3) is open source ftw. In addition, I think wilsons process of building the thing, launching the thing, and then asking for funding is a very principled thing to have done, and should be encouraged more. I like the idea of retro-funding, because it self selects for execution oriented builders, and by definition youre verifying someones extant contribution as opposed to speculating on their eventual delivery. Totally understand that some props require large funding up front to pursue and want to be supportive of those larger capital investments, but I am much more amenable to voting for a retro fund proposal. PS - I think im the first to vote on this one. Is there a special award or easter egg? Paging wilsoncusack.eth *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
Strongly in favor of the governance tooling the Verb team makes. Specifically, this proposals allocation towards Nouns governor as well as private voting will be critical not only as utilities towards the Nouns DAO, but also as a early design for other DAOs as the space overall moves beyond EOA-first product design and towards other abstractions (EIP 4337, 6551) that will be needed to scale ethereum utility to more users and use cases. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
- low cost proposal (<1 days auction amt) I think should carry a lower onus of utility. In this case, I actually think the potential utility is high, and would love to see a nounish take on a block explorer. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
While appreciating the intent of the proposal, its unclear what the practical impact of this would be, or even if it would be positive or negative. As jihad points out, our main goal should always be to increase voter turnout - I cant think of any way to game the way people turn out w/out (a) either having more contentious propositions or (b) having alternate ways to incentivize vote usage (like with voting markets, etc). To that end, while I dont find this proposition to be malignant in its intent, I dont see the obvious value, and am more averse to creating governance bloat, where we have a bunch of active rules and parameters to operate within, making future proposals harder to pass. Is 15% the right amout? or 10%? or 5%? As a high level framework for what kind of governance proposal makes sense, Id argue individual nouns should always vote in favor of what they find to be *right*, as opposed to voting for something that *isnt wrong*. This vote is largely to commemorate the reasoning above, not to criticize the particulars or intent of this proposal, which is why it is an abstention, and not a for or against.
0 references
Averse to this proposal, both in premise and in execution. In premise, I generally dont view insurance as a great asset to purchase - if the underwriter is pricing the insurance premium correctly and generating a great return, it necessarily means the buyer is not getting a good return on their premium payments. Conversely, if the underwriter is pricing the insurance premium incorrectly, the buyer may get a good return on their payments, but ultimately runs the risk of counterparty insolvency. In this case, paying over 1% fees sounds cheap until you compound that number for a few years and realize the opportunity cost. In execution, I find it odd that we first have to pay to get the contract audited. Are cozy contracts not already audited? If not, why is that something we should cover? Its a little rich for us to pay to verify the veracity of the product were aiming to purchase itself. Second, the pool seems to only have $300k left, which is nowhere close to covering our actual stETH exposure of $26M. If we are serious about risk management and insurance, there are better ways to accomplish the same goals (ie other LSTs, initiating short perp positions, etc). If stETH depegs more than 50%, the entire ecosystem will have bigger problems than waiting on a $300k insurance payout. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
Voting against - borrowing parts of my reasoning from my discord conversations. Im a fan of the whole ultrasound money site + relayer, but im trying to understand why our eth donation makes sense here. it seems like its just a random donation, without any benefits to the nouns ecosystem, nor is it as if the core team asked for it. Im generally in favor of supporting public goods software, but this seems like its just a one time payment for nothing in return. It’s not that I don’t support “goodwill”, it’s just that I’m not sure how one measures that, which makes it hard to justify. By the above logic, why not donate 500E or 1000E? Or why not send 100E to vitalik for all of his contributions to public goods? Part of the appeal of a dao to me is to be able to coordinate groups of ppl to do things they couldn’t normally do individually- when it comes to things like pure donations, its not clear to me why people couldn’t just donate to the specific causes in the specific amounts they prefer. Theres a maxim Price is what you pay, value is what you get. My concern with props where we are giving back to the ecosystem without any detail or plan is that if feels like blanket spend based on the hope that it ends up being valuable in some nebulous way. Theres nothing wrong with funding ideas with potentially high but unclear value, but that becomes a slippery slope to spending increasing amts b/c theres no way to measure the upside anyways. Should the ultrasound team have approached us for some kind of funding (sponsorship, or funding some new project, etc) I would be in support of that, but as a matter of principle I dont think I am in favor of just giving something away. At this point in the vote it looks clear to pass, and Im happy to disagree and commit, but I still want to memorialize my reasoning on chain as a reference for future votes.
0 references
I also am somewhat skeptical of the associated costs. It would be good to standardize our expectations of what price per developer we are comfortable with paying, so that proposers can know what budget parameters to expect for what they submit. *sent from voter.wtf*
0 references
