RFV FUD tactics in full effect.
This is a warning sign that Nouns may be at risk of capture.
We should absolutely claw back funds from projects that fail to deliver or mismanage resources, but a proposal like this needs comprehensive receipts, not a flimsy set of bullet points laced with RFV-style FUD.
How is a voter supposed to fairly evaluate these claims? If this kind of lazy, forum-tier proposal passes, it’s a clear signal that Nouns is compromised.
I fully support scrutinizing proposals and holding recipients accountable. Just this month, over $400K has been returned to the Treasury, a massive win. What I won’t support are amateur, low-effort RFV FUD tactics.
When I see them, I assume we’re under attack... again.