0xa555d1ee16780b2d414ed97f4f169c0740099615 (Q519)
From Nouns Dev
Individual
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 0xa555d1ee16780b2d414ed97f4f169c0740099615 |
Individual |
Statements
we need better onchain infra for trustless cross DAO voting. we are beneficiaries of more nouns buying & more nouns voting participation.
0 references
I disagree with the nounders on this one. theres a view that privacy is all about wanting secrecy and that it is a cloak that only the cowardly or the malicious want to put on to hide their shenanigans. this view imo misses the real social issues real humans experience when voting completely transparently. for example, once you get to know someone or some team its hard to vote against a prop they put up even if you dont think they are the right person / team for the project (or dont agree with the aim of the project entirely) b/c it feels like youre rejecting them and that social pressure creates a social relationship cost to voting honestly (biasing towards voting yes or not voting). another example is if you know youre going to put up your own prop soon or a contentious prop you care a lot about is coming up soon. in that case, you need to maintain friendly relationships with as much of the voter base as possible. voting your conscience in props leading up to the prop you want to win creates a real opportunity cost to voting honestly. note that in both of these examples the voter is not trying to screw over the protocol public. they are an honest actor that simply would prefer to vote honestly for selfless reasons but the social costs or the opportunity costs of doing so lead them to vote (in the worst case) dishonestly. Im totally open to the possibility that ultimately the benefits of full transparency can outweigh the benefits of privacy and we can as a community decide to maintain the status quo. but I would like to have the conversation before dismissing it out of fear. and we cant really have a concrete conversation if we dont know whats even possible. this round imo is a step to find that out.
0 references
appreciate the revised prop. excited to follow along!
0 references
looking forward to following your journey for another year david!
0 references
at this point we should probably think of NounsOTG as a team with their own brand (like nounish) not an individual. happy to continue funding NounsOTG since this is something we need and theyve been doing a great job but: A) other teams interested in events shouldnt be shy about similarly building out a team / brand within nouns B) we should probably throw a decentralized nouns con of some sort this year (through prop house like the holiday thing?) beyond being present in others events.
0 references
identifying a thing that the dao would actually find very useful + figuring out how to do it + presenting it in a prop that is clear = much more valuable than 1 ETH. we want more of this than less. why not comp on value?
0 references
I disagree with 0xbff3. Im pro earning a noun as part of the builders incentive comp. also love the prop itself. ever since the discussions of restoring a skatepark last year Ive been wondering when a prop like this would happen and excited to see victor bring the idea to life for a basketball court.
0 references
I dont quite know if the nouns virtuous cycle works with scaling charitable giving (unlike building public goods that remain). there feels a bit too little discussion / accountability about the impact the past funding has had for the nouns brand building (beyond the social good it has done, which to be clear I appreciate but we cant infinitely fund all social goods).
0 references
I love the idea of minting the CC0 video as an NFT (nouns is in the business of monetizing public art). I do wonder if just selling it as a 1/1 auction would have been better than the fixed price open edition. brandons 1/1 nouns art did sell at a decent price way back when: https://superrare.com/0xca4607aad52f654cf6357895c397094c077a3236/the-nouning-1
0 references
love gnars. the budget did give me pause for a moment but ultimately garns is one of the strongest centers of IRL nouns subculture thats being built out and we should support the momentum.
0 references
discourse is failing us. governance context and conversations are more spread out than ever. there need to be a place where voters can come to evaluate all the necessary context before voting even if they havent been paying attention prior. house of nouns is the main product/team thats making a meaningful attempt to solve this important problem. I use it every week. strong yes from me.
0 references
paying for open-ended hype videos doesnt feel nounish to me
0 references
watched the prop video and was just amazed by the nounishness of the artistic style lol. excited to see what marc creates.
0 references
was a bit unsure about the operating team but got more comfortable after dm-ing with mrtn a bit. I have reasonable faith that this group can be good reps of the dao. as for the model itself, theres kind of a clear way well evaluate the success / failure at the end which I like. it will entirely depend on how I feel about the 5 net new builders this grant program onboarded and their quality & retention.
0 references
not a small expense so I debated a bit but feels important for there to be some IRL moments where nounish ppl can build memories together.
0 references
Im generally a prop house maxi but leaning thinking we could use a crutch while we figure out how to scale PH spending in the mid-range across a range of topics. I like that theres are focus areas and that the pod members will rotate.
0 references
I disagree with takes that 1000 ETH is some outlandish / greedy move by Zora. This is a free open source protocol they are committing to building that would directly help proliferate nouns. They have put in 4 months of their product development time already + 100 ETH to the code audit and are NOT asking to be retroactively compensated for their dev costs but rather for a commensurate commitment from us to help fund an endowment of this public good. The funding will go to further build and proliferate the protocol. They are financially aligned with nouns by owning 20 nouns themselves. This is a fair, well-aligned, ambitiously nounish situation, and I wholeheartedly vote FOR.
0 references
Couldnt be more excited about this prop. Goldy and team are the perfect crew to tell the Nounish tale.
0 references
The video sold me. Excited for high quality nouns clothing. Would request to keep the full glasses visual logo. Also wouldnt necessarily *demand* feedback from gremplin or others nounders unless they are authentically interested and choose to do so. Looking forward to following the execution!
0 references
Continue to feel that small grants committee funding has been one of the highest ROI funding proposals consistently. Funding Lil Nouns contract deployment before it was an obvious winner is one of many such examples. Really glad with the fact that along with on-chain DAO proposals and prop house we still have a discretionary pool of capital with an open mandate handled by committed nouners to swiftly act on all things that already have or have the potential to proliferate nouns.
0 references
This proposal really makes me smile and appreciate how great permissionless cc0llaboration is.
0 references
Theoretically Lil Nouns doesnt NEED this proposal to buy a Noun but given that context I think it can be a good on-chain gesture to invite lil nouners to buy a noun and join our DAO so voting FOR.
0 references
Appreciate the Madhappy team for iterating on this proposal over the weeks. Excited for this collab!
0 references
Voing yes for the Stage 1 portion of this. Klim has been a valued community member and I would rather err on the side of seeing how this can develop rather than cut if off here. However, proactively sharing that Ill likely vote against for Stage 2 if the designs remain roughly as is. Im not an expert (and of course this is subjective) but personally its not an aesthetic that I feel compelled by.
0 references
Nouncil has been amazing so far. Betting on amplifying the groups activities is a clear yes for me.
0 references
Not gonna lie, felt a bit random at the beginning, but see their commitment to CC0 as value alignment. Also loose trust through Zora nouners.
0 references
No brainer imo. Spending more on sharing what were building with the world is likely great ROI.
0 references
I think we should experiment with rewards more and I trust wag. I dont yet know if this pilot will scale well to rewarding success outcomes of proposals, but could still work well at the non-proposal contributor scale.
0 references
Prop house has unlocked something special and Im here for it.
0 references
Im voting FOR prop 57 because in the current world where nouns lacks a mechanism (or any type of process) to compensate for success of proposals (note we fund mostly costs) it makes rational sense for the proposer to include what they want upon success. Naturally its a contentious and painful topic to discuss. Before seeing what the project delivers, how are we to know what the success reward should be? People are mostly arguing that 1 noun is a lot, but it can also be much too little. Ultimately, the correct success reward is infinitely harder to decide upon before the fact and can lead to much wasted heartburn each time. This is why I’d advocate for us to put into place something like [Retroactive Impact Rewards - Nouns](https://discourse.nouns.wtf/t/retroactive-impact-rewards/884) to establish trust with proposers that we will reward success fairly and generously such that we can move the reward discussion moment to AFTER the project is delivered rather than before. In lack of such process and trust in the current state, I do not see it as bad faith or form that a proposer asks for what they want upon success as part of their funding proposal ask. I’ll leave the ambiguity of “successful delivery” which is the 1 noun delivery criteria outside of this discussion. I’m imaging there’s some judgement by the DAO to make when the time comes and should be additional incentive alignment for the proposer to actually deliver something clearly successful in order to earn the noun without debate.
0 references
while I appreciate the film and the subjects it covers I think nouns should fund public art that is more proximate to our movement (cc0, crypto, nouns meme, etc) at the current moment in time.
0 references
appreciate the team continuing to work on this and enjoyed the video but something about highlighting the use case of running marketing raffles for influential NFT holders types ideas feels not nounish to me. I do appreciate the creator contests aspect of things more though.
0 references
I would be supportive of using some percentage of our lil nouns treasury to support lil nouns builders (for example 10% of our holding would be ~70 lil nouns), but ending the emissions entirely feels a bit abrupt and Im not sure if its something that has broad support from the lil nouns community? (proplot signaling feels somewhat weak for a prop of this magnitude). If a formal onchain vote had passed on lil nouns dao to put this prop up then I would definitely have considered more strongly.
0 references
What I find a bit sketchy is that Im wary of the fact that theres no disclosure about who financially benefits from NNS succeeding. This prop is asking Nouns DAO to promote a specific NFT collection (the NNS NFTs). Those NFTs are sold for ETH and someone gets that ETH. It concerns me when props dont make that type of financial incentive clear and upfront and hide behind we proliferate nouns and seeming as a public good when they are not. In this way NNS is not a public good (free public infrastructure) like prop house or nouns builder and thus should be dealt with a bit more skepticism imo.
0 references
not a no forever; would love to see the impact of the explainer video from ordinary folk (and a little bit more time passed for a new way to tell the nouns story emerge) before funding another high quality team to work on one.
0 references
Reason was too long-form to capture here so will include a discord message link instead: https://discord.com/channels/849745721544146955/873197966373052426/996526286153461850
0 references
It seems that the reason were discussing gifting a noun to an extension project, which is unprecedented (we never discussed a gift nor discount to sharkdao, goop, etc), is that we were allocated 10% of future NFT supply (a new thing that Lil Nouns did). Im voting AGAINST since Im opposed to sending a signal to present and future nouns extensions that we value receiving NFT supply allocation in a special way. Receiving someone elses NFTs is kind of a headache. Were suddenly put into the position of having to make asset owner decisions (should we hold or sell) and in some cases such as this one we might have added governance responsibilities as well (e.g. have 10% responsibility of lil nouns future). So unless we have some easy DAO level consensus on regularly selling the newly received NFTs, were likely looking at the duties of holding onto an illiquid asset while incurring more DAO governance overhead. One might say that if we start receiving a lot of NFTs this way then some might really pop and have liquid markets and we might be able to experience some real ETH treasury gains through it. But if we really believed in that then we could have always bought new noun extension NFTs as pure investors with our ETH. I believe we have yet to do that because we dont think ourselves as NFT investors (even if the scope is limited to nouns extensions) and dont think that is where we create the most value from our attention. An arrangement that wed much rather prefer than being gifted NFT supply is a nouns extension buying Nouns with their treasury. In this arrangement, we get ETH and likely some governance participation as well, both things that we really like and no added responsibilities that we dont like. Im not saying that we should be stingy or completely self centered in a short term way. I think Lil Nouns is a brilliant experiment and love that were for example spinning up a lil nouns prop house and sending ETH their way to help bootstrap builders there, etc. I just think that rewarding NFT supply gifting over other acts such as buying nouns or participating in our governance (which both sharkdao and goop have done) sends the wrong message that is against our incentives. We want extensions to buy Nouns, submit proposals, and participate in our governance! Giving us assets for free can be nice but comparatively is meh.
0 references
