You bought 1,207 of the ShapeShift DAO Simple Bond in the Arbor auction on 2023-03-06 (your purchase: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x8bac1c6768ebd63625dd5f115282d611e2e4ab442337c1393f52da5fd2fcd8d6 ). This wallet still holds them and can redeem for about $1,207 USDC at https://arbor.finance . Verify on Etherscan yourself.
FWIW, I think that Dusk, 5gram, JaneDoe, and makenounsgreatagain.eth are potentially the same person (Dusk). Possibly others that have joined since the "break even movement." I'll admit it's a conspiracy, and not sure what can be done to address it if true, but I've never seen any evidence to disprove it (has anyone?)
also, sorry i missed voting against this. was at a wedding in mexico, and have generally been very distracted since taking on a FT role at the beginning of feb. I'm planning to delegate my nouns to somebody more active. lmk if v2 launches. and if this is the end, it's been a blast daoin it with y'all. nouns forever ⌐◨-◨
+1
> this proposal captures the essence of what makes nounish initiatives effective - organic community-building through unexpected encounters rather than polished corporate activations. focusing on europe leverages benjamin's geographic advantage while testing scalable models for global expansion. the coffee popup concept creates authentic connection zones rather than sterile networking environments, generating meaningful partnerships while maintaining the playful irreverence that defines nouns culture. the modest funding relative to potential partner acquisition impact makes financial sense.
nounify-studio+1 to to humpty's and chompix's comments
Always in favor of funding creative, talented, and proven builders when the risk/reward is compelling, and this checks all of those boxes in spades.
Also, Nouns is behind on the AI trend and needs to catch up.
+1
> I love that y'all are using art to spread NOUNish culture globally. The budget reads realistic for an international multi city campaign. I'm pro anything that makes a meaningful impact on the youth, and love the focus on children with illnesses or disabilities. Thank you for the work you all are doing ⌐◨-◨
Don't overthink it, just let swarthy cook.
He's already put a ton of work into organizing this opportunity, and has done a great job at each step. If any nouns member wants to contribute or get involved, they are invited and encouraged. I think it's valuable for nouns to have an official presence/space at ethdenver, and appreciate swarthy for putting the only prop up that can achieve this.
thanks for the quick answer, that makes sense. best of luck on all fronts!
+1
> @0x05A1...011c
>
> Thank you for your comment. We truly hope that the Arts Council proposal will be approved. However, we will not be notified of the outcome until late March, while our project is scheduled to begin on April 2nd. This timeline means that if we wait for the Arts Council’s decision, it may be too late to move forward with the project.
>
> For this reason, we need to take action and proceed as quickly as possible. What matters most to us now is doing everything we can to make this project happen, regardless of whether the Arts Council proposal is approved. That is why we requested support from Nouns DAO without waiting for the final decision.
>
> If we receive additional funding from the Arts Council, we commit to full financial transparency. We will disclose the combined total budget and actual project expenditures, and after deducting all necessary costs required to execute the project, we will promptly return any surplus funds to Nouns.
>
> >
> >
> > very cool prop, especially if Art Council co-sponsors.
> >
> > to clarify, as currently written, any amount that art council contributes would be returned to the treasury, correct?
> >
> > is it possible to make this prop contingent on art council co-funding, or put the prop up after art council has agreed to co-fund?
> >
very cool prop, especially if Art Council co-sponsors.
to clarify, as currently written, any amount that art council contributes would be returned to the treasury, correct?
is it possible to make this prop contingent on art council co-funding, or put the prop up after art council has agreed to co-fund?
i think index and satori have run the DUNA well and would prefer to see them renewed to avoid the cost and risk of transitioning. that said, i trust gramajo would make a fine admin as well. good luck
i think index and satori have run the DUNA well and would prefer to see them renewed to avoid the cost and risk of transitioning. that said, i trust wylin would make a fine admin as well. good luck
i think index and satori have run the DUNA well and would prefer to see them renewed to avoid the cost and risk of transitioning. that said, i trust JP would make a fine admin as well. good luck
satori and index have been a great team and have done a fantastic job as DUNA admins. i appreciate them reducing their salary ask, and think best path forward is to renew them both and get back to focusing on ideas that actually proliferate nouns ⌐◨-◨
satori and index have been a great team and have done a fantastic job as DUNA admins. i appreciate them reducing their salary ask, and think best path forward is to renew them both and get back to focusing on ideas that actually proliferate nouns ⌐◨-◨
that said, would prefer to see things like the eoy awards prop rather than one-off props.
or even better, nouner of the month.
would support a proposal to do nouner of the month for a year where any nouners can nominate someone, and at the end of each month nounspacetom gets to pick
i think index and satori have run the DUNA well and would prefer to see them renewed to avoid the cost and risk of transitioning. that said, i trust peter would make a fine admin as well. good luck
appreciate chris's flexibility, tenacity, and most of all creativity. in favor of both chip and benny and making more bets with upside, and looking forward to the next stage of this experiment
nouns-busi like this a lot. the onchain creator house / bus at dev connect was excellent and well executed by humpty, and this evolution has the potential to be even better. let's dao it
steward-of-technical-exploration
+1, awesome altruistic offer from nekofar/milad/lulu/zero. LGTM
+1
> Fully support nekofar.eth/Milad/Lulu/Zero keeping exploring and contributing to the codebase.
>
> I’d just suggest clarifying in the proposal which specific access is needed and, if possible, adding a timeframe both in the proposal and in the accesses themselves, so there is a need to revisit and renew it.
>
> That way the DAO does not forget about it over time and it does not quietly turn into unlimited or indeterminate access.
>
> Thanks for contributing and creating these beautiful pieces of art!
nouns-×-octant-—-co‑funding-builders-sustainably
heck yea, very excited for this experiment and grateful that Octant is willing to allocate 1k of their own ETH. seems like a win-win-win, especially if we can attract additional co-funders.
clarifying q's:
1. 1000 wstETH = 1222.3 eth currently. should we deposit 818 wstETH, or even better, if we do deposit 1000 wstETH will Octant match with 1222.3 ETH in their vault?
2. how will Octant.eth use the delegated nouns to vote? (ie. will each nouns prop that requests funding from the yield contract also go through octant's governance? or will GLM stakers vote?)
3. there are some staling mentions of Devconnect in sections VIII, X, and XI
the token strategy model is awesome imo. shoutout Punks for pioneering it and making it available to other communities. pretty incredible that we can run this experiment for only 1 ETH.
while $PNKSTR will always be market leader, and the meta isn't as hot now as it was a few months ago, the strategy model has worked and continues to work well for many other communities.
a few examples of strategies that have accumulated hundreds of ETH worth of NFTs:
Chimps (340 ETH)
Vibes (493 ETH)
Apes (522 ETH)
PudgyPenguins (551 ETH)
Checks (304 ETH)
CrypToadz (351 ETH)
why shouldn't Nouns have a strategy too?
Nounscraft does a lot of good for relatively little funding, and the quality of their production is top notch. If we can help them reach sustainability so they can continue proliferating and educating indefinitely that seems like a win win.
duna-admin-elections@0xdcf3...7a19
+1 to this approach.
Before investing all the time and energy in running an open election, let's first see if the community is in favor of renewing existing admins.
shared similar sentiment in the last admin election topic: https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/742?tab=activity&item=0xe1c520d61fe999ae7e40269e6312dadff54efbf9eb5ff2b11fc63b1a5ac648fd-422
> Here is the process I’d propose that is simple, fair, and fully onchain:
> - The current admin team submits a renewal proposal so the DAO can first decide whether to keep the current administrators. If the DAO wants to maintain the same admins, this allows them to decide this before putting time and energy into a full election process. If the DAO prefers to proceed with a full election, this proposal will not pass.
> - If the admin renewal proposal does not pass, it will serve as the official onchain nomination process and kickoff a timer for nominees to begin submitting their own candidates.
> - The admin renewal proposal will include a short section explaining how anyone can nominate themselves if the proposal does not pass. Anyone who wants to be considered must abstain on the proposal and publicly add a copy-pasted statement: **“I nominate myself, [name], to be considered for DUNA admin elections.”** Current admins cannot vote on proposals and are exempt from this statement requirement, but are automatically eligible to submit individual proposals should the combined renewal proposal be defeated.
> - The admin renewal proposal will link a HackMD candidate template so all nominees can follow the same structure and the DAO can review candidates easily. There will be specific sections included in the template for the nominee to add in their own pitch if desired, modifications to the proposal candidate, and a closing statement.
> - If the admin renewal proposal does not pass, all nominees should finalize and publish their candidate onchain within one week after voting concludes. The end of the voting period is the beginning of the one week submission period for nominees.
> - Nominees cannot sponsor their own proposals even if they have enough Nouns to do so. Nominees must obtain sponsorship from other Nouners on their candidate as a signal of support. This avoids a wave of self-sponsored candidates that may not have backing from the DAO.
> - One week after voting on the admin renewal proposal concludes, the one week submission window opens. Anyone with the required sponsorship can submit their admin candidate as a proposal.
> - Whichever two candidates submitted during the submission week which pass with the most ‘For’ votes become the next administrators. Alternatively, the candidates whose proposals pass first would become the next admins. I’d be interested to know what others in the DAO feel is a more appropriate selection criteria, but I think the most number of ‘For’ votes makes the most sense instead of having a race to submit and pass a proposal first.
>
> This keeps the process simple and onchain, let's the DAO have full control, and ensures anyone can then step forward, with a clear timeline and a fair nomination process that avoids nomination spam onchain. It also guarantees that candidates demonstrate real support before posting a proposal. The entire process would take around four weeks.
very cool, just set these up. hope this passes so you can keep up the great work.
side note: i'll look into how we can make this discoverable from the nounspace homepage.. we need a better way for community members to find useful tools like this.
dang.. it's unfortunate that financial / accounting liabilities occur from simply receiving NFTs.
regardless, since that's the world we now live in, makes sense to me to remove this liability since we haven't realized any benefits from the rewards, nor do we have any plans to (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
plus, as long as nouns dao is the owner of lil nouns DAO's executor contract (TIL), the community could always pass another proposal in the future to transfer/delegate the rewards we missed.
I support the team's efforts and wish them the best, but even if we trust that all promises will be delivered, it's not clear to me what benefits Moosh could have for Nouns that aren't already available from other established peer-to-peer networks and cloud marketplaces. For $60k, would expect this to more clear.
Also concerns me that Nouns would be a primary funder of a high-risk early stage project that will require significant capital. If Nouns were to receive meaningful upside in Moosh's potential future success, that would mitigate this concern, but even then I am not sure we're the best fit to be a 'lead investor.' To nekofar's point, would need to see the team secure more funding (or traction) beyond Nouns to have confidence that the network will be sustainable and people will be sufficiently incentivized to buy and run the hardware long term.
+1
> Just trying to understand better, what problem in Nouns DAO are you guys actually trying to solve with this? From what I read, it sounds like Moosh is getting its infra tested while Nouns gets a decentralized hosting setup, but the main issue we’ve faced with frontends isn’t really AWS going down. The problem has always been that when funding stops, the infrastructure behind those sites goes dark.
>
> A Nouns frontend doesn’t just run on a web server. It depends on a bunch of external services like RPC endpoints to read and write to the blockchain, subgraphs to fetch indexed proposal and auction data, APIs for Farcaster or Discord integration, and sometimes even image or metadata hosting. Each of these services has its own cost, and when the DAO stops paying the bills or the developer maintaining it disappears, everything breaks. That’s why we’ve seen frontends vanish overnight before, not because AWS failed, but because the payments or maintenance stopped.
>
> So I’m wondering, how does Moosh actually solve that? Does it decentralize the full stack, including RPCs and subgraphs, or only handle the hosting layer? Because even if we self-host the frontend, it still relies on paid endpoints for data. If those go unpaid, we end up in the same situation again.
>
> Basically, if the goal is to make Nouns infra censorship resistant, that’s great, but it also needs to be financially sustainable. Otherwise, decentralizing the hosting is like putting a backup generator in a house that still depends on someone else’s water and gas lines, it might keep the lights on, but the rest still shuts down when the bills aren’t paid.
Sounds like a fun experiment that could take off. Appreciate that the team is offering some direct benefits to Nouns while building something that can benefit other communities as well and not rely solely on Nouns forever.
Worst case, we cross-pollinate with GLITCH, learn from the experiment, support web3 builders to develop an open-source onchain protocol, and are only down 5 ETH.
+1
> Keep Nouns Weird!
+1
> Voting FOR as I feel this aligns with the Nounish ethos. I appreciate the experimentation and willingness to push boundaries in NFT design and governance.
>
> That said, I do have some reservations. No shade to the artist, but I’m not convinced the current art is compelling enough to inspire the level of care/attachment this system depends on. Maybe the economic incentives will balance that out, but my first impression is that emotional engagement might fall short.
>
> On the revenue side... while I know Nouns isn’t primarily about profit, the proposal frames revenue as a benefit. In reality, any income to the DAO feels more like hope. It would require significant adoption, recurring engagement, and preference for Nounish traits before any meaningful flow of funds materialises.
>
> Still, the concept is interesting, the cost reasonable and the potential for novel insight high. Worth backing as an experiment 👍🏾
I like Nouns 95 and Wylin and am generally in favor of funding nounish builders to develop novel open source software.
Also agree with the arguments against funding redundant internal tooling. Strongly prefer to fund products that either have a path to sustainability (or dare I say, direct financial upside), or provide significant value that justifies the grant. Bonus points if you can do both.
Despite that, I think nouns gov has been far too harsh on software this past year relative to other props. Other than nouns.world (which is more content than tech), every software related prop this past year has been defeated (some repeatedly). Wtf??? Building, piloting, and proliferating software is one of our greatest strengths and opportunities as a community, yet we've repeatedly turned away builders who invested their own time and resources to build in our ecosystem. Do I think it makes sense for us to spend 9.5 ETH for what's been developed so far with Nouns 95 and Berry OS? Respectfully, no. Am I willing to make a bet on Wylin to continue building and iterating toward something even better? Fuck yes. Let him cook.
Also very excited about the upcoming Octant V2 pool and hope that it helps reverse this trend. If this prop doesn't pass, hope we can support Berry OS development and many more software projects forever.
nouns-x-octant-collabalmost sounds too good to be true, yet somehow is completely and trustlessly true.
always in favor of supporting eth-aligned app builders, and especially in favor when we can do it sustainably and in collaboration with great partners and the broader community.
disclaimer: nounspace/blank.space would also love to apply as app builders
Thank you to everyone who supported us once again. It means a great deal to the team, and softens the blow of yet another close defeat.
While each rejection hurts, the fact that the majority of individual community members do believe in the team and what we’re building motivates us to continue pushing forward.
If anyone ever has any feedback on what you’d like to see us do better, our DMs are always open.