memoscan

0x760d…3fe5

All memos sent from and to 0x760d…3fe5.
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x8e9210f6…5c87·#23,216,300·0xaef0e60a…bb672f
{"title":"海洋退出，李总垫资按比例退还了注资额，现在BBD还给李总-3-0825","description":"海洋退出，李总垫资按比例退还了注资额，现在BBD还给李总\n","contentURI":"","contentURIType":"url","proposalType":"TRANSFER_ERC20"}
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x8e9210f6…5c87·#23,193,577·0xdec23abc…d24641
{"title":"海洋退出，李总垫资按比例退还了注资额，现在BBD还给李总-1-0822","description":"海洋退出，李总垫资按比例退还了注资额，现在BBD还给李总-1-0822","contentURI":"","contentURIType":"url","proposalType":"TRANSFER_ERC20"}
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x8e9210f6…5c87·#23,014,780·0xc0c4c454…56f5ba
{"title":"Odyssey申请投资资金-2-0728","description":"Odyssey申请投资资金第二部分 199,900.00 U，一共需要20万 U","contentURI":"","contentURIType":"url","proposalType":"TRANSFER_ERC20"}
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x8e9210f6…5c87·#22,985,901·0xd41029e6…07d528
{"title":"Odyssey申请投资资金-1-0724","description":"Odyssey申请投资资金第一部分100U，一共需要20万U","contentURI":"","contentURIType":"url","proposalType":"TRANSFER_ERC20"}
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x90dd9d99…d222·#21,012,669·0xb3c14810…35b19b
+1 > For the long-term interests and development of the DAO, the Nouns Foundation should be removed, not empowered. > > Some DAO members are using seemingly politically correct issues to tear apart the entire community and centralize power using the foundation, a complete betrayal of the original value proposition of NounsDAO by DUNA. > > If DUNA passes, we will permanently lose a global, permissionless DAO, and instead become an increasingly centralized traditional foundation. > > We are not moving towards compliance, but towards dictatorship. > > DAO is Decentralized Autonomous Organization. > > Let’s fight for decentralization and fight for our freedom. +1 > The past few weeks, I've had open discussions about the trade-offs of DUNA between those for and against it. I did my best to understand everyone's perspectives fully. If you're out of the loop, here is a simple summary of the effects: > * The fork mechanism is being removed > * KYC is required to receive make props > * All future actions of the DAO must be compliant with US regulations > > Pro-DUNA people believe that being a conventional legal entity is the only way to collaborate with the largest (web2) brands globally. They see the core purpose of Nouns as being an onchain donation platform for IRL grants, and DUNA is optimized strictly for that (Although there has yet to be a real occurrence where this would be actually useful, see: https://warpcast.com/three9s.eth/0xd082548e). > > While I think onchain donations for web2 stuff can be valuable, I don't believe this is Nouns' strongest purpose. I see the key strengths of Nouns as: > > 1. Bringing onchain values to the real world — the Nouns brand is a gateway to Ethereum and the principles its community stands for (decentralization, censorship resistance, etc.). > 2. Bootstrapping identities — Nouns are among the best PFPs, and offer a fair and open mechanism for anyone to join and participate. > 3. Inclusive participation — community-driven governance structure where the best props get funded. > > If we are not fully open and decentralized, these strengths are significantly weakened. The brand's ability to represent Ethereum's core values—like decentralization and censorship resistance—relies on being accessible to anyone, anywhere, without gatekeepers or KYC. Without this openness, Nouns would risk becoming just another exclusive club or corporate entity, disconnected from the broader Ethereum ethos. > > This may seem like an over exaggeration, but I think it is the logical conclusion if DUNA passes in it's proposed form. > > The effects would be: > 1. Poor sentimate within the DAO due to people who believe in these values no longer aligned with the new direction (and stuck due of fork removal). > 2. Fewer funds because there will be less desire to buy a Noun (because it is too risky due to fork removal). > 3. Anons being treated as 2nd-class citizens, having to route through trusted KYC'd individuals (the "Nouns administration") to receive grants. > > These aren't all the downsides, but these are the ones most obvious. > > HOWEVER, even if you are still not opposed to DUNA for the above reasons, there is another reason I strongly encourage you to vote against the proposal: **the unfair and unjust behavior of the Nouns inner circle** pushing for this. > > The reasonable thing to be for the pro-DUNA folks to fork Nouns and that would be the web2-centric fork. The next most reasonable thing would be for the anti-DUNA folks to fork and that would be the web3-centric fork. Instead of this, the majority holders have shot down multiple proposals to bring the fork threshold down to a reasonable level (https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/642). > > This is trying to force those who joined a free, permissionless protocol to be part of this new regulatory entity against their will. That is a disgusting injustice, and it brings great shame to Nouns. +1 > I am fundamentally against Nouns DUNA. > > The grassroots and Ethereum alignment of Nouns was a big factor in why I became involved in the DAO, and why I think Nouns is one of the coolest projects on the internet. With the shift to DUNA, I feel this is being lost. > > I would encourage everyone to read the values section of [ethereum.org](https://ethereum.org), and ask yourself if Nouns DUNA is a step in the right direction towards alignment. Unfortunately, when I do this the answer is NO on all fronts: > - Equal Access: DUNA is likely to impose geographical restrictions on grantees (ex. sanctioned countries) and will restrict bidders. > - Open to all: DUNA requires grantees to KYC, a permissioned process. > - Decentralized: DUNA centralizes operations to the USA and further consolidates veto control (ex. Chief Compliance Officer). > - Censorship Resistant: DUNA had the final say and the power to censor any proposal with the Veto, which will likely be done anytime a proposal is deemed non-compliant with the DUNA. > - Privacy Oriented: DUNA requires grantees to KYC, eroding privacy. > > Additionally, I’m confused as to why the proposed auction revenue vesting is being framed as minority protection. True minority protection should allow ANYONE who is fundamentally misaligned with the direction of the majority to exit. The proposed system only offers temporary protection to new members, which diminishes over time. Nouns DUNA would likely be better off without, and note that DUNA and minority protection are distinct issue. There are alternative ways to implement real minority protection without creating arbitrage opportunities, which I believe is a more productive use of protocol dev resources. > > Finally, the lack of transparency from the Nouns Foundation, especially regarding tax liability, is deeply concerning. Nouns DAO has generated over $135M in revenue and, to my knowledge, has never paid taxes. It seems likely that the DAO treasury will be drained to cover the tax liability, leaving Nouns DUNA to try to navigate without a treasury. > > I will be disappointed if this proposal passes. I believe that non-DUNA Nouns has the potential for a more exciting, impactful, innovative, and unstoppable future. > > Whatever the outcome, at least it’ll be entertaining 🍿. +1 > @0xd75c...F322 > > Are you seriously comparing the Ethereum Foundation to Nouns Foundation or Nouns DUNA? Come on, you know the Ethereum Foundation isn't Ethereum. But Nouns DUNA is going to be Nouns. If you're comparing it to the Nouns Foundation, how could you even do that? In what universe or level is the Nouns Foundation remotely similar to the Ethereum Foundation beyond just having 'Foundation' in the name? > > > > > > > I find the KYC and AML concepts hilarious to be honest. Every single protocol who provides grants requires you to KYC (Are you going to call Ethereum Foundation centralized to their face?) and this same community harped on the most ridiculous questions when we brought Princess Sarah into Nouncil that makes me believe no one here actually understands why AML policies are in place. > > > > My biggest problem with showcasing Nouns to a greater network is because this community can barely stay organized without a “paid what I deserve” to do it. If the money was gone, would they still be around or would they just move onto another community that has a fairly simple grants system to take money from? I would take some time to talk with David Horvath or myself about how difficult it has been to bring Nouns into the mainstream when we have to spend 2+ meetings explaining what Nouns even is and then explain “oh we have no structure, we’re a dao”. > > > > I am new to Nouns, that’s true, but the nouns community that came before me was the same group that allowed millions of dollars to be distributed with little to no due diligence. > > > > DUNA is a step forward and I’m here for it. We as a community should be making it as simple for future nouns contributors to thrive. Think about the longterm benefits and our goal to build a billion dollar public goods brand out of a CC0 community. > > > > +1 > Signalling against this candidate in its current form for one specific reason: the transaction to adjust fork threshold to 100%. > > Adjusting the fork threshold to 100% at the same time as funding the foundation conflates this proposal with the actual DUNA inception. When in actual fact it will take a couple of months for the DUNA to be established. > > I'm not signalling against on a sentiment basis either. I am doing so in the best interests of the DUNA, of which I am currently in favour of 60/40. Let me explain... > > Today I invited Wag to have a one-on-one discussion, on voice chat, in the Nouncil discord server. Fifteen others joined to listen into our conversation as you can see in [this screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/gxzhd5t.png). > > If you'd like to listen into our conversation after the fact, you will find a [recording here](https://nouncil.notion.site/30328df718424f17a623859018497fc2?v=806b5234a2a34b619c3d5028bcd879f0&p=7aa9148894f5446a807d62d321bf64f2&pm=s). > > In summary of our conversation... > > Two camps: > > A. Pro-DUNA : Needs to be maximally aligned at inception > B. No-DUNA : Needs to be maximally aligned at inception > > So basically: > > 1. Pro-DUNA needs a fair exit for No-DUNA > 2. No-DUNA needs a way eject arbitrageurs > > For a win-win outcome, Nouns needs to direct resources to solving the above, in order for Pro-DUNA to be maximally aligned at inception for maximum chance of success, while giving No-DUNA a fair exit and opportunity to carry on with their preferred values. > > This is a divorce and we have kids together. We need the best outcome for everyone. Adjusting the fork threshold to 100% at the same time as re-funding the foundation is the wrong move. Although, if carefully stipulated in the proposal, it can be the right one. > > Redirect resources, such as Verbs, away from automating foundation tax administration, and toward the determination of a win-win solution that is in line with goals of limiting liability, allowing for reasonable minority protection, and most importantly, ensuring the DUNA is maximally aligned at inception. > > I can't stress enough how important this is. I could go on with various other methods of reasoning, and share insights into lengthy mediation (I've been through a bad business break up AND a literal divorce) experiences, or you can simply spend an hour with myself and Wag, to whom I extended a hand. > > In closing, I'd like to offer my help to any others in positions of power within Nouns, who aren't the best at communicating. Most conflict resolution is a function of effective communication. So please, reach out and let's make sure proceedings from here on are PvE and not PvP. > > Positive-sum prevails. +1 > The Nouns Foundation is like some shady secret society now, completely cut off from the community it’s meant to serve. They’re pulling strings behind a curtain, making decisions without even bothering to clue the community in. It’s got that "we know better" vibe, where instead of actually engaging with the community, they’re doing things in backrooms, leaving the community to guess what’s going on. They’re even hijacking community resources and employees, making decisions off-chain without any transparency. No surprise people are getting frustrated. When communication’s a one-way street, you end up with an echo chamber, not a community. > > And the irony? A project supposedly built on decentralization is leaning on trust-based mechanisms and exclusive group chats. What happened to trustless systems? These secretive deals, backroom setups, and off-chain moves totally undermine what Nouns should be: a transparent, onchain community. Instead of uniting people, the Foundation’s tactics are driving wedges between us. We’ve got forks, rage quits flying around like it’s some kind of game, and all because they won’t just have open, honest conversations. > > The worst part? No accountability. If the Foundation screws up, like they have before, who’s holding them responsible? No one. There’s no transparent system for the community to step in. They’re running in their own little bubble, and the more they shut us out, the worse this is going to get. All they’re building is distrust and disengagement. > > If they want to fix this mess, they need full reform. We need a new group that actually includes the community in a meaningful way, not just lip service. This new group has to be built on transparency, with real discussions and decisions that reflect the broader community’s input. No more hiding behind closed doors, hijacking resources, or making moves without consulting people. This group needs to bring back the trustless principles we’re supposed to stand for, with real accountability and an open governance framework. If they don’t start listening to the people who care about this project, it’s just going to spiral further into chaos. Time for a real change. > > I’d encourage everyone to join the Nouncil Discord, which is where most of the discussions are happening these days. Unfortunately, it’s not as public as it should be, but that’s what we’ve got for now.
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x90dd9d99…d222·#20,841,806·0x23d7597e…50d554
1. NounsDAO has experienced a consensus split. I personally dislike being informed of NounsDAO's compliance retroactively. If NounsDAO had declared its future compliance plans at the earliest stage, I would have withheld my attention entirely. 2. The present strategy of hindering a fork by leveraging Arber-induced panic, thus restraining the minority's self-preservation efforts, reveals a principled insincerity. 3. The current community panic about Arbers is unnecessary. We should realize this will be the last fork, and Arber-related issues won't happen again. 1. After this fork, NounsDAO can propose raising the threshold back to 30% or higher, effectively banning future forks. The remaining NounsDAO can then focus on advancing the DUNA proposal for U.S. compliance. This will prevent Arbers from arbitraging. 2. DUNA's design stops Arbers from profiting from NounsDAO. First, once DUNA launches, legal requirements mean current Nouns Holders can't exit. Second, only those participating in auctions after DUNA's launch will have exit rights, and the new exit mechanism won't provide arbitrage returns. 3. This doubly discourages any arbitrage expectations from current Arbers. The following is the original text of the new mechanism "From Forks to Streams" after DUNA's launch: --- A Potential Design: Escrowed Streams We are contemplating changing how auction winners pay for their Noun: instead of paying the full amount to the DAO right away, a small part would be paid to the DAO upon settlement, with most of the funds instead being deposited into a non-custodial and non-upgradeable escrow contract that then autonomously streams auction funds to the DAO over a period of 4 years.If a Nouner wishes to exit the DAO, they can send their Noun back to the DAO, which will automatically cancel the stream, and they would then receive any unstreamed funds back from the escrow contract.The stream cancellation right is transferable and tied to the Noun NFT. No Streams for Past Nouns Unfortunately Nouns which pre-date this change will not have a stream attached. This is due to requirements related to the restructuring of the DAO. https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/jFi5T0aehwZws7Q6jdRn8xZmORu25TiyWz4G5LAHuaU ---
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x90dd9d99…d222·#20,841,512·0xb12093ad…671ba1
1. NounsDAO has experienced a consensus split. I personally dislike being informed of NounsDAO's compliance retroactively. If NounsDAO had declared its future compliance plans at the earliest stage, I would have withheld my attention entirely. 2. The present strategy of hindering a fork by leveraging Arber-induced panic, thus restraining the minority's self-preservation efforts, reveals a principled insincerity. 3. The current community panic about Arbers is unnecessary. We should realize this will be the last fork, and Arber-related issues won't happen again. 1. After this fork, NounsDAO can propose raising the threshold back to 30% or higher, effectively banning future forks. The remaining NounsDAO can then focus on advancing the DUNA proposal for U.S. compliance. This will prevent Arbers from arbitraging. 2. DUNA's design stops Arbers from profiting from NounsDAO. First, once DUNA launches, legal requirements mean current Nouns Holders can't exit. Second, only those participating in auctions after DUNA's launch will have exit rights, and the new exit mechanism won't provide arbitrage returns. 3. This doubly discourages any arbitrage expectations from current Arbers. The following is the original text of the new mechanism "From Forks to Streams" after DUNA's launch: --- A Potential Design: Escrowed Streams We are contemplating changing how auction winners pay for their Noun: instead of paying the full amount to the DAO right away, a small part would be paid to the DAO upon settlement, with most of the funds instead being deposited into a non-custodial and non-upgradeable escrow contract that then autonomously streams auction funds to the DAO over a period of 4 years.If a Nouner wishes to exit the DAO, they can send their Noun back to the DAO, which will automatically cancel the stream, and they would then receive any unstreamed funds back from the escrow contract.The stream cancellation right is transferable and tied to the Noun NFT. No Streams for Past Nouns Unfortunately Nouns which pre-date this change will not have a stream attached. This is due to requirements related to the restructuring of the DAO. https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/jFi5T0aehwZws7Q6jdRn8xZmORu25TiyWz4G5LAHuaU ---
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x90dd9d99…d222·#20,834,466·0x3d8ff7bb…885bfb
1. NounsDAO has experienced a consensus split. I personally dislike being informed of NounsDAO's compliance retroactively. If NounsDAO had declared its future compliance plans at the earliest stage, I would have withheld my attention entirely. 2. The present strategy of hindering a fork by leveraging Arber-induced panic, thus restraining the minority's self-preservation efforts, reveals a principled insincerity. 3. The current community panic about Arbers is unnecessary. We should realize this will be the last fork, and Arber-related issues won't happen again. 1. After this fork, NounsDAO can propose raising the threshold back to 30% or higher, effectively banning future forks. The remaining NounsDAO can then focus on advancing the DUNA proposal for U.S. compliance. This will prevent Arbers from arbitraging. 2. DUNA's design stops Arbers from profiting from NounsDAO. First, once DUNA launches, legal requirements mean current Nouns Holders can't exit. Second, only those participating in auctions after DUNA's launch will have exit rights, and the new exit mechanism won't provide arbitrage returns. 3. This doubly discourages any arbitrage expectations from current Arbers. The following is the original text of the new mechanism "From Forks to Streams" after DUNA's launch: --- A Potential Design: Escrowed Streams We are contemplating changing how auction winners pay for their Noun: instead of paying the full amount to the DAO right away, a small part would be paid to the DAO upon settlement, with most of the funds instead being deposited into a non-custodial and non-upgradeable escrow contract that then autonomously streams auction funds to the DAO over a period of 4 years.If a Nouner wishes to exit the DAO, they can send their Noun back to the DAO, which will automatically cancel the stream, and they would then receive any unstreamed funds back from the escrow contract.The stream cancellation right is transferable and tied to the Noun NFT. No Streams for Past Nouns Unfortunately Nouns which pre-date this change will not have a stream attached. This is due to requirements related to the restructuring of the DAO. https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/jFi5T0aehwZws7Q6jdRn8xZmORu25TiyWz4G5LAHuaU ---
0x760d092a…3fe5sent to0x90dd9d99…d222·#20,834,460·0xf541bac2…340d20
1. NounsDAO has experienced a consensus split. I personally dislike being informed of NounsDAO's compliance retroactively. If NounsDAO had declared its future compliance plans at the earliest stage, I would have withheld my attention entirely. 2. The present strategy of hindering a fork by leveraging Arber-induced panic, thus restraining the minority's self-preservation efforts, reveals a principled insincerity. 3. The current community panic about Arbers is unnecessary. We should realize this will be the last fork, and Arber-related issues won't happen again. 1. After this fork, NounsDAO can propose raising the threshold back to 30% or higher, effectively banning future forks. The remaining NounsDAO can then focus on advancing the DUNA proposal for U.S. compliance. This will prevent Arbers from arbitraging. 2. DUNA's design stops Arbers from profiting from NounsDAO. First, once DUNA launches, legal requirements mean current Nouns Holders can't exit. Second, only those participating in auctions after DUNA's launch will have exit rights, and the new exit mechanism won't provide arbitrage returns. 3. This doubly discourages any arbitrage expectations from current Arbers. The following is the original text of the new mechanism "From Forks to Streams" after DUNA's launch: --- A Potential Design: Escrowed Streams We are contemplating changing how auction winners pay for their Noun: instead of paying the full amount to the DAO right away, a small part would be paid to the DAO upon settlement, with most of the funds instead being deposited into a non-custodial and non-upgradeable escrow contract that then autonomously streams auction funds to the DAO over a period of 4 years.If a Nouner wishes to exit the DAO, they can send their Noun back to the DAO, which will automatically cancel the stream, and they would then receive any unstreamed funds back from the escrow contract.The stream cancellation right is transferable and tied to the Noun NFT. No Streams for Past Nouns Unfortunately Nouns which pre-date this change will not have a stream attached. This is due to requirements related to the restructuring of the DAO. https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/jFi5T0aehwZws7Q6jdRn8xZmORu25TiyWz4G5LAHuaU ---