Here goes a final update 🫡
- Deployed https://docs.nouns.wtf/ (a replacement for nouns.center, but owned by the DAO)
This is a new home for documentation and guidelines for everything Nouns. It's pretty easy to add new stuff, since the content is all Markdown, while still having the flexibility to add custom code and diagrams where needed.
To edit existing pages, simply click "Edit this page" on the sidebar (on desktop), then make your changes and submit them (as PR). To create new pages, reach out to me and I can set it up for you.
- Deployed https://api.nouns.wtf/
This is a new https://ponder.sh/ based API for Nouns. It's way cheaper to host than the old subgraphs (<$10/mo), and it's way easier to extend, add new data and run locally or deploy yourself.
It doesn't have all the data available in the subgraphs yet, but it's really easy to add whatever you need for your client that it's missing.
- Published an updated [https://www.npmjs.com/package/@nouns/sdk](Nouns sdk) with modern interfaces (wagmi) for interacting with the contracts
I decided not to move forward with the bounty program. Funds have been [returned to the treasury](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x77d4a3300dd3bb9008beabd05f7ace795bae1d0c4a4e76ae6b6f8966822082fa)
@0xa47f...eC67
That was done for the old treasury
We migrated to a new treasury as part of the [DAO v3 upgrade](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/356) (fork), so it has to be set for this one
>
>
> Wasn't that already done by Proposal 205?
>
+1
> We got a chance to partner with a top 10 staked ETH provider, who wants to work with Nouns and check out our ecosystem. For Nouns to succeed, Ethereum’s gotta succeed, and having a big player in staking on our side is a win.
> I would like Mantle to do more than just watch how Nouns runs. I hope they get in deep with our community, maybe throw some cash at Nouns community projects, donate to our treasury, or have MNT Team bid on Nouns auctions and switch up their PFPs to show alignment. They could fund projects and ideas that fit Nouns This is a shot to show the skeptical folks this aint just a shallow look-see or them poking around. By putting in real work, like funding, jumping in, and sharing goals, can show they mean business about building something big with Nouns.
+1
> Hi mate, I understand that you've been taking on an uphill battle on this which imo shouldn't be a battle at all. I can totally see how there are fans and potential buyers for thep ieces you want to make. I'd recommend focusing on getting those to place an order with you and build it bottom up instead of spending time on custom website, etc..
>
> Reiterating my VWR from December last year: Since you're making 1-1 pieces, there's really nothing that could be holding you back to reach out to the people who signaled interest and book in their orders, and get your work out there. One thing to reconsider is your timing.
Time for a status update:
My focus on this first month was paying off tech debt, fixing things that were broken on nouns.wtf and removing outdated information.
Tech debt:
By updating to modern technologies and setting up better guard rails the development experience improved considerably.
- Faster builds, quick visual feedback on changes and less boilerplate quickly repays for the time invested.
- Website loading performance also improved noticeably.
- AI assistants are also much more helpful and less error-prone with the updated tech stack and development practices. They're likely the future of this codebase, so that's a very important KPI
- Processed most of the old issues and PRs on the repo, with only a few left to address.
Shoutout to nekofar.eth for his continued contributions! (he did the heavy lifting on the tech stack upgrades)
Broken & outdated things:
- [Explore Nouns](https://nouns.wtf/nouns) section was rebuilt. It was thought out for an era of 100s of Nouns, and didn't work very well with the 1000s we have now (took a very long time to load).
- Older Nouns now load (we missed you, [Noun 0](https://nouns.wtf/noun/0))
- Removed links to several outdated/abandoned resources (nouns center, nouns agora, )
- Brought Japanese translation up to date (Nouns DAO Japan folks, hit me up if the translations can be improved)
New stuff:
- DUNA section on explainers
- Chinese translation
- Footer nav (with direct links to all the important contracts)
- [Brand assets](https://nouns.wtf/brand) page with the main logos & resources
- [Traits](https://nouns.wtf/traits) page with the full list of traits (downloadable as png and svg)
- [Playground](https://nouns.wtf/playground) now allows for transparent bg and exporting as both png and svg
Still lots that can be improved, but IMHO nouns.wtf is at least presentable now.
Now I'll focus a bit on setting up our knowledge base (nouns center replacement) to host all the documentation we direly need.
Bounty program:
To be initiated.
With the current capabilities of AI agents, my feeling is the bounty budget will be best spent in taste and curation:
- creating new articles for the knowledge base (or vet the AI writing), ensuring they're accurate, readable & didactic. (e.g. for dynamic quorum, client incentives, sponsoring props).
- creating new content for the landing page (showcase the DAO achievements, onboard builders, artists, voters, etc)
- design revamps (could def use a fresh coat of paint)
Development bounties will probably be less abundant, since tasks that are well described enough to be a bounty can likely be implemented by Claude. Exceptions might be data-heavy tasks that can benefit from more diligence (new subgraph entries, metrics, etc) or ones that could benefit from creativity and some added weirdness.
That's it for today
Please reach out if you have feedback, ideas, requests 🫡
Love the dragon booth (and accompanying [Noundry head](https://gallery.noundry.wtf/trait/6851a343b646f46d6d3d58ef))
+1
> Budget line items seem to be off. Confident you can make the funds work harder. Great initiative to support.
love the idea of having a floppy, but this one has too little contrast, so it looks a bit washed out and doesn't fit very well with the rest of the collection imo
I think a darker shade is more iconic and fixes the contrast issue: https://gallery.noundry.wtf/trait/6846d9da4c4836a1b6645325
thoughts?
Nouns DAO already runs a grants program. Adding another legal entity and a separate grants program on top of it adds a lot of overhead.
Amigos could use its network to directly support, sponsor and follow-up with proposals on Nouns.
+1
> - LeSs CaRToOnIsH ✅
> - More nounish ✅
> - Acknowledging that per-trait comp is fine while there's no working alternative, and that this is indeed fair comp for the long process of experimenting with [many different traits](https://gallery.noundry.wtf/profile/0x215db99298af65306a4c60bd3b7612d5f60b03d7), picking one that has potential, iterating on it and integrating feedback, all of which culminated in this wolf ✅
probe-dream-405
- LeSs CaRToOnIsH ✅
- More nounish ✅
- Acknowledging that per-trait comp is fine while there's no working alternative, and that this is indeed fair comp for the long process of experimenting with [many different traits](https://gallery.noundry.wtf/profile/0x215db99298af65306a4c60bd3b7612d5f60b03d7), picking one that has potential, iterating on it and integrating feedback, all of which culminated in this wolf ✅
+1
> Nouns feels like an odd fit for this. The vast majority of Nouns funding is either:
> 1) Streaming payments
> 2) Direct grants
>
> And then teams provide updates via PropDates. SafeNotes feels like a level of fidelity that is too in-the-weeds to get a clear picture, when PropDates already covers the higher level items. This doesn't seem like a burning need to me
@0xae47...5Fed
> to debate the compensation is embarrassing
Debating comp is literally the main thing we do in governance rn. It will keep being contentious as long as there is no structured process, and there are no clear expectations.
I'd rather structure something, then iterate and improve on top of it, rather than having this discussion over and over again without ever moving the needle. We need to build rituals and processes that compound over time so that we can spend less energy debating the basics.
>
>
> "Alternatively, we could host trait competitions "
>
> It is not alternatively, we can do both if you guys are desperate to sink monkey into rounds that amount to nothing...
>
> @volky
> that money to rounds didn't result in any trait props or anything onchain and cost the dao eth, what was the most memorable thing to happen as a result (rhetorical Q)
>
> more focused efforts e.g. /noc ppl like nadie has resulted in him making 2 trait props costing dao 0 so far - that is **zero dollars** for clarity.
>
> since 2023 ive run weekly call every tuesday morning -informal helping people propose and give help with art/design for nouns / lil nouns, been doin this.
>
> Everyone can say they want to do this and that or are doing this and that working in "that direction", the clear difference is, we already did it, here is a prop - it is 1e, to debate the compensation is embarrassing.
>
> Cheers
>
> +1
>
> > @0xae47...5Fed
> >
> > we've already compensated dozens of noundry artists via [rounds.wtf](https://rounds.wtf/noundry/noundry-themed-contest-1-landmarks-1), including Nadie.
> > I'd rather allocate more funds towards that to nurture the movement and recognize the work of all of them.
> >
> > I fully support compensating the artists. It should just be decoupled from adding traits.
> >
> > Trait props should be just about the artwork, so they can be judged only on that merit.
> >
> > By bundling comp with it, you introduce a confounder: it's not only about how good the trait is anymore, but also about how much people think said artist should be compensated, if it's too much or too little, if the artist is their friend, etc.
> >
> > Keep trait props simple, fun, meaningful. The landmark is less meaningful if it comes with a price tag imo
> >
> > > the old noundry events/props never got a single new person onchain to propose a head
> >
> > This is just a matter of establishing rituals, encouraging and supporting other artists. Let's make Noundry more lively, set up community calls, have a cadence.
> >
> > I'm working on something in that direction
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > you said: "I'm also against the comp in this fashion. Noundry is a process rather than specific deliverables, and if we only compensate people when their traits make it to the collection, we'll be favoring those that are more charismatic like you rather than evenly compensating everyone who's participating and keeping the movement diversified."
> > >
> > > from pov of sponsor (me): the old noundry events/props never got a single new person onchain to propose a head, we are all making pixel art everyday, this is just one community member (who has never been funded by nouns dao up until prop last week), think should focus on celebrating them.
> > >
> > > I like people having their own proposals, it adds more significance to an already significant event in their life and is a personal onchain landmark for them; and i like compensation for that reason too, artists shouldn't feel weird about asking for money - Nouns is a buyer of pixel art.
> > >
> > > Nadie has made 100s/1000s of traits, as have many others, and I look forward to welcoming/helping them all to propose and compensating everybody forever.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > I don't think the aesthetic fits nicely with the rest of the collection. It's too cartoonish (in the Looney Tunes sense), while other traits are more minimalistic and simplify rather than exaggerate features.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also against the comp in this fashion. Noundry is a process rather than specific deliverables, and if we only compensate people when their traits make it to the collection, we'll be favoring those that are more charismatic like you rather than evenly compensating everyone who's participating and keeping the movement diversified.
> > > >
> > > > I would favor Noundry comp in a similar format to the [noc prop](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/793). Give Noundry a budget and let multiple artists be a part of it.
> > > >
> > > > We could host periodic contests, have more collaborations to iterate on traits off-chain before proposing, make it more lively.
>
> +1
>
> > Generally not in favor of compensating trait submissions. That said, there may be rare cases where payment makes sense, like when a well-known artist contributes a trait that brings significant new attention to Nouns. Alternatively, we could host trait competitions with prizes, without guaranteeing that winning traits are added to the collection.
@0x560D...79E6
> artists must constantly fight for their work to be valued
this is exactly how it works now, and I'm proposing we figure something out to change that and to give artists a clear path to comp without relying solely on all or nothing props. I'm arguing for more stable comp for artists, that's all.
I appreciate Nadie's work, I want the DAO to support him, this is not personal.
>
>
> It's okay if you "don't like" the trait, but I don't really get the aversion to compensating artists. A price tag doesn't diminish an artwork's artistic and cultural value. In many cases, its monetary value is the result of both.
>
> Is the asking price too high? Well, we need to do price discovery like the daily auction, but consider that adding art to the collection is equally valuable to adding code to the protocol. I don't see anyone having a problem putting a price tag on that work.
>
> I've said it before: yes, we must be strict on which traits we add, but exceptional traits deserve to be added and compensated.
>
> Not compensating artists for their work sends a poor message and perpetuates the twisted reality that artists must constantly fight for their work to be valued.
>
That being said, I fully acknowledge that I've been armchair criticizing the current model without there being a working alternative. Sorry about that.
I'll focus my energy on creating alternatives instead.
+1
> It's great to see Leo receiving interest from funding groups outside of nouns.
>
> I'm not convinced the “WHY NOUNS” section is that strong here.
>
> Hopefully base set up and allow you to create this project without this 19k from nouns.
@0xae47...5Fed
we've already compensated dozens of noundry artists via [rounds.wtf](https://rounds.wtf/noundry/noundry-themed-contest-1-landmarks-1), including Nadie.
I'd rather allocate more funds towards that to nurture the movement and recognize the work of all of them.
I fully support compensating the artists. It should just be decoupled from adding traits.
Trait props should be just about the artwork, so they can be judged only on that merit.
By bundling comp with it, you introduce a confounder: it's not only about how good the trait is anymore, but also about how much people think said artist should be compensated, if it's too much or too little, if the artist is their friend, etc.
Keep trait props simple, fun, meaningful. The landmark is less meaningful if it comes with a price tag imo
> the old noundry events/props never got a single new person onchain to propose a head
This is just a matter of establishing rituals, encouraging and supporting other artists. Let's make Noundry more lively, set up community calls, have a cadence.
I'm working on something in that direction
>
>
> you said: "I'm also against the comp in this fashion. Noundry is a process rather than specific deliverables, and if we only compensate people when their traits make it to the collection, we'll be favoring those that are more charismatic like you rather than evenly compensating everyone who's participating and keeping the movement diversified."
>
> from pov of sponsor (me): the old noundry events/props never got a single new person onchain to propose a head, we are all making pixel art everyday, this is just one community member (who has never been funded by nouns dao up until prop last week), think should focus on celebrating them.
>
> I like people having their own proposals, it adds more significance to an already significant event in their life and is a personal onchain landmark for them; and i like compensation for that reason too, artists shouldn't feel weird about asking for money - Nouns is a buyer of pixel art.
>
> Nadie has made 100s/1000s of traits, as have many others, and I look forward to welcoming/helping them all to propose and compensating everybody forever.
>
> +1
>
> > I don't think the aesthetic fits nicely with the rest of the collection. It's too cartoonish (in the Looney Tunes sense), while other traits are more minimalistic and simplify rather than exaggerate features.
> >
> > I'm also against the comp in this fashion. Noundry is a process rather than specific deliverables, and if we only compensate people when their traits make it to the collection, we'll be favoring those that are more charismatic like you rather than evenly compensating everyone who's participating and keeping the movement diversified.
> >
> > I would favor Noundry comp in a similar format to the [noc prop](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/793). Give Noundry a budget and let multiple artists be a part of it.
> >
> > We could host periodic contests, have more collaborations to iterate on traits off-chain before proposing, make it more lively.
I don't think the aesthetic fits nicely with the rest of the collection. It's too cartoonish (in the Looney Tunes sense), while other traits are more minimalistic and simplify rather than exaggerate features.
I'm also against the comp in this fashion. Noundry is a process rather than specific deliverables, and if we only compensate people when their traits make it to the collection, we'll be favoring those that are more charismatic like you rather than evenly compensating everyone who's participating and keeping the movement diversified.
I would favor Noundry comp in a similar format to the [noc prop](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/793). Give Noundry a budget and let multiple artists be a part of it.
We could host periodic contests, have more collaborations to iterate on traits off-chain before proposing, make it more lively.
nouns.wtf-refresh@0x6a02...80F4
The discourse instance is actually being decommissioned since it sees little usage, and we have several alternatives like Camp topics, Warpcast, Discord. Just to be clear, that instance is not currently managed by the DUNA, so keeping it up would require figuring out the budget, securing access from previous admins, but does not seem to be worth the trouble
I went ahead and archived all the content from that forum to preserve the data for future reference:
https://nounsdao.github.io/discourse-archive/
> Move discourse link to a less prominent spot (like a submenu):
> 
> https://discourse.nouns.wtf/
>
> Discourse sees very little action these days, and imo it's a bad look for anyone jumping in trying to find the community and getting to know Nouns.
> Most recent topics are mainly outsiders asking questions that go unanswered.
>
> One is named "Seems like Nouns are dead":
> > There is no activity no views no grants anything for newcomers. I can’t even join to discord server because it does not let me to verify.
@0xEDc1...e7e1
> About nouns center just see a continuation of doing thing that led us to what you are trying to of fragmentation
The core purpose of this prop is precisely to try something different. I clearly didn't do a good job of laying out a plan here, but I've consistently advocated for this vision in calls, on-chain comments, and other channels:
- This isn't about building another personal project for Nouns. It will be fully owned by the DAO.
- I don't intend to be the sole maintainer. The goal of this proposal is to create the least friction possible for community contributions.
- The bounty program aims to reduce dependence on a single maintainer by shifting ownership to the community.
I'm committed to creating a neutral ground that benefits everyone.
> Not to mention not owning as a duna and when funds and attention run out can not be just picked on kicking the can down the road
- Ownership will indeed rest with the DUNA (this is being developed under the NounsDAO GitHub organization).
- I'm building it to have as few external dependencies as possible, to keep active maintenance needs to a minimum
- Infrastructure costs, when necessary, will be covered by the DAO. I've already been in touch with former maintainers, DUNA admins, and potential service providers to ensure sustainable next steps.
I fully acknowledge the concerns you're raising, and this proposal is intended specifically to address them.
> I will put a cancel stream proposal for center work if you could please separate budget please and put up for vote.
That's ok. I'm using streaming payments intentionally to hold myself accountable.
All I ask is that you give me a shot at it before shutting it down. I want this process to remain transparent by actively incorporating feedback, addressing objections openly, and adapting as we figure it out together.
When raising objections, please:
- Clearly identify how it negatively impacts you.
- Consider whether the issue arises specifically from my decisions or if it's a pre-existing problem.
- Ensure it's based on facts rather than hypotheticals.
That's called an integrative decision-making process, and I want us to adhere to it to unblock problem-solving in the DAO.
We expend significant energy in Nouns looking for perfect solutions, which tbh don't exist. I propose we adopt a more iterative approach instead, making steady, incremental progress and adjusting as we learn, rather than trying to patch things up with big moves.
Appreciate you for engaging and caring.
>
>
> Unfortunately not so simple as bias of Wikipedia against crypto given they have crypto companies and communities in their site and challenging comments literally include the auction being first thing witch I totally agree given also being part of nouns has never been required as for example we have candidates where you can be sponsored, gifted nouns and general community values. About nouns center just see a continuation of doing thing that led us to what you are trying to of fragmentation solve not and for me doing same things and expecting different results is not worth it. Not to mention not owning as a duna and when funds and attention run out can not be just picked on kicking the can down the road and is not worth wasting resources, as good in some ways break even movement to have better financial control to survive longer than this year it’s missing a big factor to reduce the most possible inefficient capital allocation that unfortunately this prop showed by pushing down prop before just because we could afford it in 30 day rolling basis (also that should be reviews as positions to be just a front running race of props that could get the best ideas not funded), but will start a topic about that in next few weeks. In the end to let you know I will put a cancel stream proposal for center work if you could please separate budget please and put up for vote.
>
> +1
>
> > lots to unpack here
> >
> > @davinoyesigye, eusoujp, monografia
> > > ~ I disagree with the retro comp
> >
> > I get that most of the work I did is made of invisible, technical chores, but I tried to make it more tangible in [this propdate](https://updates.wtf/update/773-2)
> > I've also been coordinating with past maintainers, with DUNA & surveying providers to keep our base infra alive.
> >
> > I did make it clear on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773) that:
> > > I might propose for retroactive compensation some time in the future, depending on how much of my time I'm putting into this.
> >
> > I am putting a lot of time into this. I've been working full-time on it for the past two weeks.
> >
> > I could have asked for USDC, but I asked for a bigger stake in the governance. Is that Noun really unjustified?
> >
> > @monografia, @otterfodder, @lilfrog, @eusoujp, @nataliecrue, @gramajo
> > > ~i'd support a version of this proposal inclined to fully develop a bounty program
> >
> > That's the plan, but a bounty program doesn't make sense without the groundwork of contribution guidelines, processes and platforms that are friendly to external contributors. That's why it's packaged up with fixing the monorepo and setting up a knowledge base; otherwise people wouldn't know where to start when fulfilling the bounties.
> >
> > @otterfodder, @nataliecrue
> > > ~ Why not sunset Nouns.wtf
> >
> > This has been considered in [this topic](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/%5Bidea%5D-add-all-approved-nouns-clients-to-nouns.wtf-39a7ea92f59d74a950e4a08990519ee44ef3abc0), but:
> > - we still get a lot of inbound traffic (check the plausible analytics link in that topic) from all historical usage of that domain
> > - lots of people still care about that page and want to see it live on
> > - we need a canonical resource that belongs to the DAO to ensure we'll always hold the keys to fix it and keep it up. most of the old Nouns resources managed by other teams and individuals have faded away (e.g. nouns.camp)
> >
> > @otterfodder, @fattybuthappy
> > > build on to the developer resources of nouns.world
> >
> > .world was not designed to be a knowledge base. it's an onboarding resource meant to get people (mainly outsiders) excited about Nouns.
> >
> > It does great at that, but it's not great for documentation, resources and community contributions
> > I'm building something that's thought out from the ground up to:
> > - be open to contributions from the community
> > - have structured, searchable content
> >
> > I've reached out to Mike on this topic and being a resource/docs repo is really not the focus of .world, and he agreed it should be offloaded to another platform.
> >
> > @fattybuthappy
> > > Noundry, Nouns World, and Noundation already provide all the resources needed
> >
> > [Noundry](https://assets.noundry.wtf/nouns) is a stopgap, but it still needs a lot of work, and I'd rather do that work in the Nouns monorepo rather than doing it as my own thing
> >
> > noundation.wtf is expired. The site is abandoned
> >
> > @fattybuthappy, @bixbite
> > > The only updates the main site needs is to add link out to the active clients that we have already funded millions of dollars to have the community interact with.
> >
> > We've [been through this](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/%5Bidea%5D-add-all-approved-nouns-clients-to-nouns.wtf-39a7ea92f59d74a950e4a08990519ee44ef3abc0), but
> > as it is always with Nouns, it's very challenging to reach consensus around what should be done. What usually ends up happening is that we can't decide what to do and nothing is done...that's why our canonical page is broken, the docs severely outdated and misleading.
> >
> > We've got to figure out how to collectively decide and get unstuck. I'm not sure exactly how that should work, but I know **we must learn to make compromises**.
> >
> > We each have our own opinion about what should be done with .wtf...but we've got to acknowledge that reaching a consensus involving hundreds of stakeholders is IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> > So this is how I propose we make those calls by **consent** instead of consensus:
> > does the proposed solution actively causes irreparable damage, or is it safe to try?
> >
> > If it does not cause irreparable damage, let's try it out and iterate on it until it's good enough for most. The alternative is not fixing the problems that are actively causing damage.
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly what form or shape nouns.wtf will take in the future, but we must keep the discussion open and address and fix specific problems instead of trying to incorporate everyone's visions because that can't be done. Let's focus more on concrete problems and how to solve them because by framing these discussions around hypotheticals and what could be, we can't move the needle.
> >
> > @fattybuthappy:
> > > when I tried creating a Nouns Wikipedia, the link was flagged as shilling
> >
> > That's a different problem, one with Wikipedia's anti-crypto admin cabal 😂 We should eventually try that again, though
> >
> > @bixbite
> > > Nouns is an open source project which has 36 contributors to the monorepo, we just needed someone active to be able to merge the PRs from people wanting to contribute
> >
> > It also had >100 stale issues + PRs. Open source stewardship is not only about pressing a button and merging a PR, or else it would have been done already.
> > Software is a perishable good...it rots away in the absence of continuous upkeep.
> >
> > Lots of things had stopped working in that monorepo because old dependencies were discontinued. It's also an extremely steep learning curve for anyone wanting to contribute because it uses outdated frameworks and libs nobody is familiar with these days.
> >
> > The work is there, and it needs to be done. I'm willing to do it, nekofar is willing to do it, and we want to encourage more developers to join in...that's why we're cleaning the house and making it more inviting.
> >
> > @bixbite, @rubinovitz
> > > I also find it odd that when you go to the NounsDAO GitHub page you are the only person linked or visible https://github.com/nounsDAO... I thought you were supposed to receive access to one specific repo, so why are you the only dev linked from the main profile?
> >
> > Being displayed on that page is an opt-in for contributors, and I want to wear that badge. The other members of the Nouns org opted not to.
> >
> > I want people to reach out to me if they wish to discuss the infra, codebase or anything, so that's why I made it visible. I hope to be a contact point for this part of the DAO because we had none, and when there's no one to contact, people have no recourse and problems don't get fixed.
> >
> > I concede that getting me added to the monorepo was not on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773), but that was an oversight from me. I need that access to do the work (deleting old, abandoned repos, creating new ones).
> >
> > Index noticed that when giving me monorepo access and courteously also gave me org access. I agree that it's not to the letter of my prop and what people voted on, and I believe people voted for me to steward the whole Nouns codebase which is abandoned.
> >
> > I could put up a new prop requesting org access, but honestly...that's a technicality. Is this really that big of a deal?
> >
> > Why do you find it odd? I think we should have more devs up there.
> >
> > @rubinovitz
> > > Anyway, wanted to say that because I don’t think it was intentional, but it would be cool to list all contributors without having to pay for them all on an enterprise plan. Unsure if that’s possible though.
> >
> > It was intentional. We can and should list all contributors, and it doesn't require an enterprise plan, it's just opt-in (they have to join the org, so requires displaying a bit of commitment ofc, but doesn't require paid seats)
> >
> > @bixbite
> > > It also feels a little disingenuous that you asked for access to the Nouns GitHub repo then a month later come with a proposal [...] created out of thin air and pushed through to give you a job / task within Nouns....
> >
> > I've been discussing this in onchain topics, talking about it on Lil Nouns Discord voice, reaching out to people in DMs. How is this out of thin air?
> >
> > And also, what's wrong with me trying to claim work that needs to be done in Nouns? Is it because I'm asking to be paid (a Jr. developer salary) for it?
> >
> > Stop trying to find hidden motives and throwing shade on people who you disagree with, Bix. That's a bad look.
> >
> > Attack my ideas, not my character.
> >
> > @memevalue
> > > Nouns Center has probably had 1 visitor in the past year, so I struggle to see the value on keeping it going vs building from scratch
> >
> > the original idea was just to get rid of the outdated content and update it to get it fixed asap, but that proved more challenging than anticipated bc some important bits are sourced from Notion docs and we don't have access to update those anymore. Since I has already started working on it, I took the path of least resistance.
> >
> > Don't fixate on this aspect, though...the layout can be completely reworked. tbh little of the original code will be left when I'm done adapting it for the CMS, so it's only a bit short of building from scratch
> >
> > @memevalue, @lilfrog, @eusoujp, @nataliecrue
> > > ~ the scope of said work needs to be heavily detailed
> >
> > I keep hearing that we don't want to inherit corporate culture and do things the old way. So why do we keep trying to do waterfall planning?
> >
> > This goes back to my previous point: we can never reach consensus as a DAO...so let's aim for consent.
> > .wtf is broken, .center is outdated and causes harm bc it's misleading, I want to fix them.
> >
> > We all have our ideas about how that should be done. I tried eliciting that discussion on the topics I've created, but it died out.
> >
> > If we keep waiting for the ideal prop before we fix what's broken, things will remain broken. This is what led us to this situation.
> >
> > I'm proposing we do something different this time: the details are not cast in stone. My compensation is streamed, and you can fire me if you don't think I'm adding value to the DAO.
> >
> > I'll remain available for feedback. I'll try to work in public as much as possible.
> >
> > I can't commit to delivering exactly what everyone wants. Scroll back to the comments on this prop, and you'll find a ton of feedback pointing towards diametrically opposite directions. I believe getting the work done is the most important thing, and substance matters more than form.
> >
> > I do commit to integrating all objections to decisions that actively bring harm to the DAO. But I will have to improvise and make judgment calls, and I ask you for a bit of trust while I'm at it.
> >
> > Let me try before you shut me down. Nobody else is doing it, so let me try.
> >
> > We have to change our work culture to be able to accomplish things together. There's a ton of value to be unlocked by compromising and building something together, rather than building several different silos and neglecting our shared spaces.
> >
> > @memevalue
> > > You also told me that you aim to change the culture around contributing, but prop doesn't mention the word "culture"
> >
> > Fair criticism. skill issue
> >
> > @memevalue
> > > I think if you were part of a team ("working group"), you could execute something greater, quicker
> >
> > I tried rallying people around this, but only nekofar was willing, and he has limited availability for the reasons stated previously. The process needs to be bootstrapped, and that's what I'm trying to do with this prop.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > appreciate all the engagement
> > sorry for the big wall of text
is-nouns-under-new-management?-wdyt?Love the initiative of addressing the elephant in the room. This is how we move the conversation forward 🤝
Being skeptical is an appropriate initial reaction. With all that happened in the recent past with arbs and forks, it's reasonable to expect the worst.
Besides, crypto whales are scary. It's raw power, and they're usually opaque, and you can only retroactively understand their motives.
> I thought the most likely explanation was that they planned to eventually pass a prop that transferred the entire treasury to themselves, and in the meantime prevent as many props from passing as they could to maximize their return.
That was my initial reaction too. What changed my perspective was both the transparency and the sheer amount of time and energy they're putting into it.
Dusk shares his Calendly link liberally. You can meet with him, understand his perspective, discuss his vision.
You can disagree with him, ofc, but he puts his votes where his mouth is. And there is a long-term vision that is about the community, rather than just about the BEM (Break Even Movement).
He's a wiser person than I am. They've all been taking a ton of shit throughout all of this, and yet he remains respectful, open and is trying to build bridges.
They're human beings, and the hostility is not missed on them. So I can get it why they are sometimes reluctant to engage...it's hard to show up with a smile when you're facing an angry mob.
---
I can emphasize with the strong feelings against props that seem to be forced through or blocked with raw voting power. This is surely not what Nouners signed up for.
But I think people are too quick to find villains and to cast the blame on someone else. There's no Hero's Journey without a villain, I guess.
What most fail to acknowledge is that the DAO was incapable of solving its own problems. The fragmentation and all the silos working against each other deadlocked decision-making, and the hard calls were never made.
This becomes obvious if you consider that the alleged "capture" of the DAO has been going on for a couple of months, and people saw it coming. Yet, no action was taken.
If the biggest possible perceived threat (capture and extraction) can't elicit decisive action from the DAO, what could? Where was the prop to raise the auction reserve price, or to pause the auction altogether?
Don't hate the player...hate the game. The DAO could have changed the rules of the game, but it didn't.
So I count it a blessing that this specific group of "captors" has a vision for the DAO and are pushing for a reform. It could just as easily have been another extractive group that drained the rest of the treasury and called it a day.
I understand centralization is not what we all signed up for, but we glaringly need leadership, and there was no lever available other than the votes for sale. The version of decentralized org we stood for has failed, and we need to reinvent the DAO and try something different.
We should definitely still demand decentralization, and hold them accountable for the centralization being temporary. But I fail to see how else we could course correct without temporary centralization.
I'm also excited about the next chapter of Nouns. Who's stepping up to fix the problems we have?
I like the kiwi, especially those funny legs poking out. I'm a bit divided bc of the colors though...it looks a bit too greenish and unhealthy.
Don't think that completely disqualifies it, but a healthy looking kiwi would be a hell yes for me.
> If Nouns DAO is to wither away until only sycophants and extractors remain, so be it.
Insulting the DAO members is not a great way of gathering support.
+1
> Together, we’ve built a magnificent, amazing global event that is wholesome and beautiful. It’s a celebration of all that we share here on Spaceship Earth, centered around three things accessible almost everywhere: pizza, the internet, and Bitcoin.
>
> In the process of attempting to bring Nouns DAO along on our third Global Pizza Party together, the PizzaDAO community has felt misunderstood, hurt, and, finally, insulted: “Beyond people getting a free meal with Nouns logos at the party, it’s hard to identify any durable, strategic benefit for the DAO.” - 0xjanedoe. Jane has used the word “respect” more freely in her writing than is appropriate for someone who has shown little. Viewing PizzaDAO's work through such a simplistic lens shows little care for the builders involved or the values that brought us together in the first place.
>
> When Nouns DAO launched in 2021 (months after PizzaDAO), I felt like it was the meta version of what we were building. As a copyleft maxi from a young age (I’ve been selling copyleft t-shirts since 2013, when you could first accept Bitcoin on Shopify), I thought I’d found my people. I’ve always believed in the basic goodness of humans and their desire to improve themselves and their environment. If we shared more, we could build faster, better, stronger.
>
> The only noun I ever considered for PizzaDAO was 292, with its WE shirt (Did you know that WE stands for Whole Earth?) and its pizza head. I worked to convince wilsoncusack.eth that I and PizzaDAO would be proper stewards of such a fine NFT (he was quite attached). He finally agreed to 40 ETH. On April 20, 2023, I paid 42 (for the memes).
>
> So why are we putting this prop up, despite our very negative feelings towards our fearless captors? Because it feels wrong to let the opinions of a few get in the way of the deep fellowship between the Nouns DAO and PizzaDAO communities. Web3 is a community first revolution. Real value (and real power) resides in the community, not the treasury.
>
> If Nouns DAO is to wither away until only sycophants and extractors remain, so be it. But PizzaDAO will not be to blame. If destroying the sandcastles we’ve built in order to save the sandbox is the chosen path, we’ll simply find another sandbox. The metaverse is vast.
lots to unpack here
@davinoyesigye, eusoujp, monografia
> ~ I disagree with the retro comp
I get that most of the work I did is made of invisible, technical chores, but I tried to make it more tangible in [this propdate](https://updates.wtf/update/773-2)
I've also been coordinating with past maintainers, with DUNA & surveying providers to keep our base infra alive.
I did make it clear on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773) that:
> I might propose for retroactive compensation some time in the future, depending on how much of my time I'm putting into this.
I am putting a lot of time into this. I've been working full-time on it for the past two weeks.
I could have asked for USDC, but I asked for a bigger stake in the governance. Is that Noun really unjustified?
@monografia, @otterfodder, @lilfrog, @eusoujp, @nataliecrue, @gramajo
> ~i'd support a version of this proposal inclined to fully develop a bounty program
That's the plan, but a bounty program doesn't make sense without the groundwork of contribution guidelines, processes and platforms that are friendly to external contributors. That's why it's packaged up with fixing the monorepo and setting up a knowledge base; otherwise people wouldn't know where to start when fulfilling the bounties.
@otterfodder, @nataliecrue
> ~ Why not sunset Nouns.wtf
This has been considered in [this topic](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/%5Bidea%5D-add-all-approved-nouns-clients-to-nouns.wtf-39a7ea92f59d74a950e4a08990519ee44ef3abc0), but:
- we still get a lot of inbound traffic (check the plausible analytics link in that topic) from all historical usage of that domain
- lots of people still care about that page and want to see it live on
- we need a canonical resource that belongs to the DAO to ensure we'll always hold the keys to fix it and keep it up. most of the old Nouns resources managed by other teams and individuals have faded away (e.g. nouns.camp)
@otterfodder, @fattybuthappy
> build on to the developer resources of nouns.world
.world was not designed to be a knowledge base. it's an onboarding resource meant to get people (mainly outsiders) excited about Nouns.
It does great at that, but it's not great for documentation, resources and community contributions
I'm building something that's thought out from the ground up to:
- be open to contributions from the community
- have structured, searchable content
I've reached out to Mike on this topic and being a resource/docs repo is really not the focus of .world, and he agreed it should be offloaded to another platform.
@fattybuthappy
> Noundry, Nouns World, and Noundation already provide all the resources needed
[Noundry](https://assets.noundry.wtf/nouns) is a stopgap, but it still needs a lot of work, and I'd rather do that work in the Nouns monorepo rather than doing it as my own thing
noundation.wtf is expired. The site is abandoned
@fattybuthappy, @bixbite
> The only updates the main site needs is to add link out to the active clients that we have already funded millions of dollars to have the community interact with.
We've [been through this](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/%5Bidea%5D-add-all-approved-nouns-clients-to-nouns.wtf-39a7ea92f59d74a950e4a08990519ee44ef3abc0), but
as it is always with Nouns, it's very challenging to reach consensus around what should be done. What usually ends up happening is that we can't decide what to do and nothing is done...that's why our canonical page is broken, the docs severely outdated and misleading.
We've got to figure out how to collectively decide and get unstuck. I'm not sure exactly how that should work, but I know **we must learn to make compromises**.
We each have our own opinion about what should be done with .wtf...but we've got to acknowledge that reaching a consensus involving hundreds of stakeholders is IMPOSSIBLE.
So this is how I propose we make those calls by **consent** instead of consensus:
does the proposed solution actively causes irreparable damage, or is it safe to try?
If it does not cause irreparable damage, let's try it out and iterate on it until it's good enough for most. The alternative is not fixing the problems that are actively causing damage.
I'm not sure exactly what form or shape nouns.wtf will take in the future, but we must keep the discussion open and address and fix specific problems instead of trying to incorporate everyone's visions because that can't be done. Let's focus more on concrete problems and how to solve them because by framing these discussions around hypotheticals and what could be, we can't move the needle.
@fattybuthappy:
> when I tried creating a Nouns Wikipedia, the link was flagged as shilling
That's a different problem, one with Wikipedia's anti-crypto admin cabal 😂 We should eventually try that again, though
@bixbite
> Nouns is an open source project which has 36 contributors to the monorepo, we just needed someone active to be able to merge the PRs from people wanting to contribute
It also had >100 stale issues + PRs. Open source stewardship is not only about pressing a button and merging a PR, or else it would have been done already.
Software is a perishable good...it rots away in the absence of continuous upkeep.
Lots of things had stopped working in that monorepo because old dependencies were discontinued. It's also an extremely steep learning curve for anyone wanting to contribute because it uses outdated frameworks and libs nobody is familiar with these days.
The work is there, and it needs to be done. I'm willing to do it, nekofar is willing to do it, and we want to encourage more developers to join in...that's why we're cleaning the house and making it more inviting.
@bixbite, @rubinovitz
> I also find it odd that when you go to the NounsDAO GitHub page you are the only person linked or visible https://github.com/nounsDAO... I thought you were supposed to receive access to one specific repo, so why are you the only dev linked from the main profile?
Being displayed on that page is an opt-in for contributors, and I want to wear that badge. The other members of the Nouns org opted not to.
I want people to reach out to me if they wish to discuss the infra, codebase or anything, so that's why I made it visible. I hope to be a contact point for this part of the DAO because we had none, and when there's no one to contact, people have no recourse and problems don't get fixed.
I concede that getting me added to the monorepo was not on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773), but that was an oversight from me. I need that access to do the work (deleting old, abandoned repos, creating new ones).
Index noticed that when giving me monorepo access and courteously also gave me org access. I agree that it's not to the letter of my prop and what people voted on, and I believe people voted for me to steward the whole Nouns codebase which is abandoned.
I could put up a new prop requesting org access, but honestly...that's a technicality. Is this really that big of a deal?
Why do you find it odd? I think we should have more devs up there.
@rubinovitz
> Anyway, wanted to say that because I don’t think it was intentional, but it would be cool to list all contributors without having to pay for them all on an enterprise plan. Unsure if that’s possible though.
It was intentional. We can and should list all contributors, and it doesn't require an enterprise plan, it's just opt-in (they have to join the org, so requires displaying a bit of commitment ofc, but doesn't require paid seats)
@bixbite
> It also feels a little disingenuous that you asked for access to the Nouns GitHub repo then a month later come with a proposal [...] created out of thin air and pushed through to give you a job / task within Nouns....
I've been discussing this in onchain topics, talking about it on Lil Nouns Discord voice, reaching out to people in DMs. How is this out of thin air?
And also, what's wrong with me trying to claim work that needs to be done in Nouns? Is it because I'm asking to be paid (a Jr. developer salary) for it?
Stop trying to find hidden motives and throwing shade on people who you disagree with, Bix. That's a bad look.
Attack my ideas, not my character.
@memevalue
> Nouns Center has probably had 1 visitor in the past year, so I struggle to see the value on keeping it going vs building from scratch
the original idea was just to get rid of the outdated content and update it to get it fixed asap, but that proved more challenging than anticipated bc some important bits are sourced from Notion docs and we don't have access to update those anymore. Since I has already started working on it, I took the path of least resistance.
Don't fixate on this aspect, though...the layout can be completely reworked. tbh little of the original code will be left when I'm done adapting it for the CMS, so it's only a bit short of building from scratch
@memevalue, @lilfrog, @eusoujp, @nataliecrue
> ~ the scope of said work needs to be heavily detailed
I keep hearing that we don't want to inherit corporate culture and do things the old way. So why do we keep trying to do waterfall planning?
This goes back to my previous point: we can never reach consensus as a DAO...so let's aim for consent.
.wtf is broken, .center is outdated and causes harm bc it's misleading, I want to fix them.
We all have our ideas about how that should be done. I tried eliciting that discussion on the topics I've created, but it died out.
If we keep waiting for the ideal prop before we fix what's broken, things will remain broken. This is what led us to this situation.
I'm proposing we do something different this time: the details are not cast in stone. My compensation is streamed, and you can fire me if you don't think I'm adding value to the DAO.
I'll remain available for feedback. I'll try to work in public as much as possible.
I can't commit to delivering exactly what everyone wants. Scroll back to the comments on this prop, and you'll find a ton of feedback pointing towards diametrically opposite directions. I believe getting the work done is the most important thing, and substance matters more than form.
I do commit to integrating all objections to decisions that actively bring harm to the DAO. But I will have to improvise and make judgment calls, and I ask you for a bit of trust while I'm at it.
Let me try before you shut me down. Nobody else is doing it, so let me try.
We have to change our work culture to be able to accomplish things together. There's a ton of value to be unlocked by compromising and building something together, rather than building several different silos and neglecting our shared spaces.
@memevalue
> You also told me that you aim to change the culture around contributing, but prop doesn't mention the word "culture"
Fair criticism. skill issue
@memevalue
> I think if you were part of a team ("working group"), you could execute something greater, quicker
I tried rallying people around this, but only nekofar was willing, and he has limited availability for the reasons stated previously. The process needs to be bootstrapped, and that's what I'm trying to do with this prop.
---
appreciate all the engagement
sorry for the big wall of text
@0x1d2F...D801
> Why did people stop using Nouns.center?
It's abandoned and most of the content is severely outdated and nobody has permissions to update. I'm trying to remedy that by opening it up for community contributions
> We should wait for a complete Nouns.world
It would serve a different purpose than nouns.world.
It's being designed from the ground up specifically for low-friction community contributions.
It's not a nouns.world replacement. I left a previous comment elaborating on that down below
> I highly appreciate the work done, but should we
also compensate Nekofar, who has contributed to the repo?
1000% agree, and it was on the original prop. this was discussed with nekofar, but he and I decided to drop it (not my place to elaborate on it onchain)
>
>
> Why did people stop using Nouns.center?
>
> Nouns funded Nouns.world, which is still under development and aims to curate information about Nouns DAO. We should wait for a complete Nouns.world.
>
> Also, on your past prop you stated:
>
> `I'm doing this on the side, and since I'm not committing to any specific time allocation, I won't be requesting compensation.
> I might propose retroactive compensation sometime in the future, depending on how much time I'm putting into this.`
>
> I highly appreciate the work done, but should we also compensate Nekofar, who has contributed to the repo?
>
+1
> > Our goal: make all Flows funded projects self-sustainable, and give upside to Nouns.
>
> That's what we need. Good pivot.
>
> At this smaller scale, I think it's a wise bet on a possible new inflow for the DAO.
>
> just please take it easy with the AI 🙏
>
> Prove it works on a small scale, with manual processes, before you try and add AI to scale it. If we can't make it work with human judgment, there's no way we'll be able to do it with AI.
I heard through the grapevine some concerns regarding the revamping of nouns.center and why I'm not simply replacing it by nouns.world on nouns.wtf instead
Those platforms serve different purposes:
Nouns.center is part knowledge base, part directory. It will host documentation & resources (for devs, for artists/designers, for Nouners), a list of projects, subdaos/voting groups, etc.
It's meant for easily finding the information you need, so it will have highly structured content and search. Likewise, it's also meant to be an extensive and up-to-date resource, so the focus will also be on auto-populating from onchain data & making it easy for the community to contribute (I'm adding a content management system that will be gated to Nouners, proposers, etc)
Nouns.world is more focused on being a landing page and captivating onboarding resource. It has a more curated subset of projects and offers deep dives on them.
from [prop 645](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/645):
> OBJECTIVES:
> Give other people onboarding in Nouns a simple resource to tap into, and share.
>
> Have a lasting, up-to-date resource for publishers, and onlookers to reference when exploring or speaking about Nouns.
>
> A constant flow of articles that I can share on socials and with the DAO each week, growing the catalog into an incredible resource for Nouns.
>
> The next time someone says, “what has Nouns funded?!” you’ll be prepared with Nouns.world!
so why-dont-we-have-both.jpg
Anyone feel free to reach out directly to me (FC, Discord) or to comment on this prop with any concerns of this kind. AMA
+1
> Love how /noc is keeping the Nouns art scene lively, and that's a solid crew right there. Comp is also compatible with the current reality of the DAO, so happy to support.
>
> I like this as an experiment in different coordination arrangements: It's basically a tightly-knit, self-managed Nouns squad nested inside the DAO, with its own budget.
>
> Great incentives setup
> - Having that budget ensures you'll always consider the trade-offs to make the best out of it.
> - Reevaluating after 3mo is good to keep noc guild accountable to the DAO
> - Easy to measure the results. Clear expectations set ahead of time.
>
> 🤝
# Nouns infra & dev tooling revamp + Bounty program pilot
## TL;DR:
- Stream volky.eth $18k over 3 months to work on:
- revamping nouns.wtf & nouns.center
- modernizing development tooling
- establishing a clear process and guidelines for community contributions
- Retro-comp volky with 1 Noun for the work done over the past month on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773)
- Set aside $2k for community contribution bounties
## Who
volky.eth 👋 more context on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773)
## What
The plan is: I'll do a lot of work upfront to update nouns.wtf + nouns.center, tidy up the codebase and modernize the tooling, dependencies and contribution practices. The long term vision is to rely mostly on community contributions, with a slim part-time guild of core contributors that take care of chores, integrating contributions and ensuring the health of the infrastructure.
- fix nouns.wtf
- fix nouns center
- process github issues and PRs
- upgrade to modern tech stack
- improve our developer docs
- implement contribution processes and guidelines (both code & content)
### Bounty program pilot
I'm asking for $2k to seed a bounty program
Funds will be kept in a [2/3 multisig](https://app.safe.global/home?safe=eth:0x0B276E727b3c09545593c484966138a11B1a32e7) with volky.eth + DUNA admins (satori.wtf, indexcard.eth)
I'll be using [https://dework.xyz/](https://dework.xyz/) to assign bounties to some issues and to bootstrap the community contributions process. Will include both code & content contributions.
To be kicked off after the contribution process and guidelines are established.
## Why
Nouns.wtf is the #1 onboarding touchpoint for Nouns, and it's broken and outdated
We have to fix it, and to ensure it never goes stale like that again.
We've got a ton of extremely talented developers in Nouns. They mostly work on their own things, though, and usually build most of it from scratch.
We should leverage that talent to improve our core infrastructure and reduce the amount of redundant work by maintaining tooling and infra that serves the whole Nouns ecosystem.
That way we can have better clients, more vibe-coded experiments, more fun, less boilerplate...all of that while being more conservative with treasury usage in comparison to funding a lot of isolated initiatives.
## Duration
3 months
## Compensation
- 1 Noun as retro comp for [the work already done](https://www.updates.wtf/update/773-2) up to now
- $6k/mo, streamed over 3 months, totalling $18k
# Nouns infra & dev tooling revamp + Bounty program pilot
## TL;DR:
- Stream volky.eth $18k over 3 months to work on:
- revamping nouns.wtf & nouns.center
- modernizing development tooling
- establishing a clear process and guidelines for community contributions
- Retro-comp volky with 1 Noun for the work done over the past month on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773)
- Set aside $2k for community contribution bounties
## Who
volky.eth 👋 more context on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773)
## What
The plan is: I'll do a lot of work upfront to update nouns.wtf + nouns.center, tidy up the codebase and modernize the tooling, dependencies and contribution practices. The long term vision is to rely mostly on community contributions, with a slim part-time guild of core contributors that take care of chores, integrating contributions and ensuring the health of the infrastructure.
- fix nouns.wtf
- fix nouns center
- process github issues and PRs
- upgrade to modern tech stack
- improve our developer docs
- implement contribution processes and guidelines (both code & content)
### Bounty program pilot
I'm asking for $2k to seed a bounty program
Funds will be kept in a [2/3 multisig](https://app.safe.global/home?safe=eth:0x0B276E727b3c09545593c484966138a11B1a32e7) with volky.eth + DUNA admins (satori.wtf, indexcard.eth)
I'll be using [https://dework.xyz/](https://dework.xyz/) to assign bounties to some issues and to bootstrap the community contributions process. Will include both code & content contributions.
To be kicked off after the contribution process and guidelines are established.
## Why
Nouns.wtf is the #1 onboarding touchpoint for Nouns, and it's broken and outdated
We have to fix it, and to ensure it never goes stale like that again.
We've got a ton of extremely talented developers in Nouns. They mostly work on their own things, though, and usually build most of it from scratch.
We should leverage that talent to improve our core infrastructure and reduce the amount of redundant work by maintaining tooling and infra that serves the whole Nouns ecosystem.
That way we can have better clients, more vibe-coded experiments, more fun, less boilerplate...all of that while being more conservative with treasury usage in comparison to funding a lot of isolated initiatives.
## Duration
3 months
## Compensation
- 1 Noun as retro comp for [the work already done](https://www.updates.wtf/update/773-2) up to now
- $6k/mo, streamed over 3 months, totalling $18k nouns-infra-&-dev-tooling-revamp-+-bounty-program-pilot
Here's what has been accomplished in the last few weeks
## Nouns monorepo
- [Fixing broken windows on nouns.wtf](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/nouns.wtf-refresh-6a024f521f83906671e1a23a8b6c560be7e980f4)
- [Nouns monorepo revamp roadmap](https://github.com/nounsDAO/nouns-monorepo/issues/890)
- Processed a good part (~50%) of the backlog of issues and PRs on [nouns-monorepo](https://github.com/nounsDAO/nouns-monorepo/pulse/monthly)
huge shoutout to @nekofar.eth who has been contributing A TON to the modernization of the codebase
## Nouns.center
- forked the original to https://github.com/nounsDAO/nouns-center
- modernized and trimmed down dependencies
- set up a (GitHub-backed) CMS to open up for community contributions (a good part of the old content was backed by Notion spaces we don't have access to anymore)
- reviewed the content (>80% of it was completely outdated, so I got rid of it for now, the other 20% is being reworked. Now we reboot with a smaller, up-to-date knowledge base, and expand it with community contributions)
It's almost ready to go live and replace the old one
Just for the record (don't think it's needed in this prop, but it's an option for future ones), split protocol also has streaming, although they call it vesting:
https://docs.splits.org/core/vesting
We should make more use of splits instead of the custom Nouns streaming payment. Splits is a great protocol, and their dashboards are great to visualize and interact with the splits.
Then we don't have to maintain custom infra like https://payroll.nouns.day
noc-decentralised-content-creation-trial-(x.com)
Love how /noc is keeping the Nouns art scene lively, and that's a solid crew right there. Comp is also compatible with the current reality of the DAO, so happy to support.
I like this as an experiment in different coordination arrangements: It's basically a tightly-knit, self-managed Nouns squad nested inside the DAO, with its own budget.
Great incentives setup
- Having that budget ensures you'll always consider the trade-offs to make the best out of it.
- Reevaluating after 3mo is good to keep noc guild accountable to the DAO
- Easy to measure the results. Clear expectations set ahead of time.
🤝
moving-flows-forward:-a-sustainable-approach-to-public-goods-funding@0x6a02...80F4
I meant specifically that their (Nouns included) org culture is incapable of producing new revenue-generating projects. I do not mean to dunk on the culture or the community.
The results speak for themselves. Do we have any showcase projects that managed to bring in any relevant revenue outside the auctions?
The auction revenue is not a project per se, it's the whole thesis of Nounish DAOs for generating income, and it's [flawed by design](https://goldenlight.mirror.xyz/QMC9qUIAVWLVhCNlJo69Y9TKkCm9DvjNn9Q6qxK-cSM#heading-flaws). Just as [we see with Nouns](https://nouns.biz/graphs), Lil Nouns auction revenue is bound to go down indefinitely, so it's not a sustainable source of income, even if Nouns & Lils get some more runway out of the auction long tail.
The community is indeed very powerful, and it's the only reason Nouns & wider network are still relevant despite the forks, falling revenue & etc. We have what most other DAOs lack: a passionate community
What I'm saying is, if we want those DAOs to keep going, we've got to adjust the culture to one that can sustain itself. We can do it because passion is the most important component.
What we need on top of that is:
- a culture of collaboration. working together on the same project instead of letting a 1000 ephemeral flowers blossom
- a culture of peer pressure and accountability. clearly defined roles with a purpose and documented responsibilities
- a clear vision to align contributors towards the same purpose
We already have a huge community that loves Nouns and a ton of them are doing free things for the DAO just out of principle. We just need to leverage that energy into more productive, compounding efforts, and compensate those folks instead of compensating more external teams.
> We keep trying to patch the structure while neglecting the internal culture. None of the DAOs mentioned in this proposal has a culture capable of producing revenue-generating projects.
>
> Why do we have to delegate away the responsibility of generating revenue? This is something of a principal-agent problem:
> - Nouns funds external teams/DAOs to eventually bring in some flows
> - Most of them fail and just abandon the project. The team leaves Nouns bc there's no more funding. There's nobody left in the DAO with know-how of the project internals to pivot/repurpose it.
> - Some of them find sustainability, but now there's no incentive for them to stick with Nouns bc they don't need the funding. They go away and do their own thing.
>
> You're proposing we further delegate this responsibility to introduce another tier of principal-agent conflict. I'm highly skeptical that Revnets can fix those misaligned incentives.
>
> If we want to become sustainable, we've got to do things in-house.
> - we've got to fund the people who are here for the long term, not passers-by
> - we've got to develop our internal organization culture to support revenue-generating projects.
>
> We should invest more in wetware instead of hoping software saves us.
> - build trust between contributors
> - scale internal delegation of powers to afford efficiency
> - leverage the far-reaching network of Nouns to find opportunities
> - seize the opportunities internally
>
> Organizational culture has compounding returns. If we keep neglecting it and only investing outwards, the DAO will fade away.
>
> There's no point in deciding how Nouns will fund public goods if there's no plan for Nouns continuing to exist.
> Let Optimism, Gitcoin, EF do that for now...they have the funds and a sustainable flywheel.
>
> We can talk more about funding public goods when we figure out how to fund ourselves.
moving-flows-forward:-a-sustainable-approach-to-public-goods-fundingWe keep trying to patch the structure while neglecting the internal culture. None of the DAOs mentioned in this proposal has a culture capable of producing revenue-generating projects.
Why do we have to delegate away the responsibility of generating revenue? This is something of a principal-agent problem:
- Nouns funds external teams/DAOs to eventually bring in some flows
- Most of them fail and just abandon the project. The team leaves Nouns bc there's no more funding. There's nobody left in the DAO with know-how of the project internals to pivot/repurpose it.
- Some of them find sustainability, but now there's no incentive for them to stick with Nouns bc they don't need the funding. They go away and do their own thing.
You're proposing we further delegate this responsibility to introduce another tier of principal-agent conflict. I'm highly skeptical that Revnets can fix those misaligned incentives.
If we want to become sustainable, we've got to do things in-house.
- we've got to fund the people who are here for the long term, not passers-by
- we've got to develop our internal organization culture to support revenue-generating projects.
We should invest more in wetware instead of hoping software saves us.
- build trust between contributors
- scale internal delegation of powers to afford efficiency
- leverage the far-reaching network of Nouns to find opportunities
- seize the opportunities internally
Organizational culture has compounding returns. If we keep neglecting it and only investing outwards, the DAO will fade away.
There's no point in deciding how Nouns will fund public goods if there's no plan for Nouns continuing to exist.
Let Optimism, Gitcoin, EF do that for now...they have the funds and a sustainable flywheel.
We can talk more about funding public goods when we figure out how to fund ourselves.
@0xae47...5Fed
Still, they should specify what's in scope and what's not. e.g. @jacopo.eth considered reworking the Appcon mural to more explicitly include Nouns, but there are restrictions against that.
What are the restrictions in this one, and how deeply are they willing to integrate Nouns? It's phrased as "decentralized community" and "the power of community-driven funding" in the abstract.
This could be either a regular performance with implicit nods towards Nouns, or it could be one featuring actual Nouns, noggles, etc. Those are two very different proposals.
It's fair to ask for clarification. Props should leave little margin for interpretation.
>
>
> this is a 3 year performance with 6 months beforehand of producing and writing a script - with the community - vs appcon prop which was only executed two days before the week-long event ended...
>
> +1
>
> > Feeling like this one could turn out to be underwhelming like the [Appcon mural](https://updates.wtf/update/772-1) because of the lack of specification on how exactly Nouns will be integrated.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > The two times I’ve heard this projects pitched in Nouncil it made me extremely bullish…. I honestly think it just did not translate that well into prop format. I know you mentioned in the comments not wanting to include this parts in the formal proposal but I think those parts that were discussed in Nouncil are the most Nounish parts. I would suggest if the proposal doesn’t pass this time around to revise (add in more details about exactly how Nouns will be integrated) and repropose
Feeling like this one could turn out to be underwhelming like the [Appcon mural](https://updates.wtf/update/772-1) because of the lack of specification on how exactly Nouns will be integrated.
+1
> The two times I’ve heard this projects pitched in Nouncil it made me extremely bullish…. I honestly think it just did not translate that well into prop format. I know you mentioned in the comments not wanting to include this parts in the formal proposal but I think those parts that were discussed in Nouncil are the most Nounish parts. I would suggest if the proposal doesn’t pass this time around to revise (add in more details about exactly how Nouns will be integrated) and repropose
@0xA868...9E63
> imo at 40k this seems like good/fun use of funds regardless
I'm mindful of how we draw that line. why 40k on this prop, and not on others?
Funding this one takes away from the rest of the props if we take the breakeven moment seriously. We should take it seriously if we want to continue funding culture in the long run.
Still think we need an explicit "for the culture" budget to make those calls. We're not considering the tradeoffs because there's no explicit ceiling on this category of props.
> Hey! Welcome to Nouns :)
>
> This is pretty cool! Speaking for myself, I think we as a community currently struggle with the question of 'where does this all lead'? Does it generate more fans, more revenue, more projects? Is is just do good things for the sake of doing good? Whats the ingredient that makes us able to keep funding things like this 10-20y from now? Early on, many of us took the stance of 'lets just fund good things and trust the process', and that has not quite panned out. So far we've also failed to find an alternative solution that shows reliable signs of sustaining Nouns, leading to a crisis of meaning/direction of sorts.
>
> Im not asking you to answer those questions — imo at 40k this seems like good/fun use of funds regardless — just wanting to shine a light on where Nouns as a project currently stands.
flows---development-ask-(final)
> Our goal: make all Flows funded projects self-sustainable, and give upside to Nouns.
That's what we need. Good pivot.
At this smaller scale, I think it's a wise bet on a possible new inflow for the DAO.
just please take it easy with the AI 🙏
Prove it works on a small scale, with manual processes, before you try and add AI to scale it. If we can't make it work with human judgment, there's no way we'll be able to do it with AI.