While i agree with some commentary around breakdowns being too highlevel, some numbers you just can't know so ahead of time.
Brand guides and Brand bibles are painstaking to build and often your licensing conversations are derailed if you dont have one defined.
I would like the proposal end game to not be a product outfit for other nounish builders (most have 0 traction) , but instead take full control of its own path so success isn't tied to someone else needing to succeed.
Going through smaller physical activations and intermixing it with strong media presence is the way to go.
nudge-×-nouns
Probably doesn't need a prop but onchain-ness (via proposal) makes it 'official' / canonical.
Nudge itself seems like a decent primitive (gamified vamp attack :D) .
secret-ballot-voting-&-sealed-bid-auctions-for-nouns-dao
Still unconvinced this is needed, a solution looking for a problem - its a good research project but it doesn't have viability at current scale of Nouns. Someone like OP , gnosis, golem, ARB Dao would be much more fitting given their scale and treasury size to warrant this.
Secondly, I am puzzled why this is being positioned as an investment (why 30mil valuation? where is traction data of Interfold etc to command that number etc) VS a grant.
europe-v2-mone66ln
Ben's events have always been tastefully done. I am generally indifferent towards crypto events increasingly as time goes on, BUT directionally this is pretty neat.
Maybe some of the events could be swapped out with something that could be more aligned with Nouns core?
noggles-playground-as-outdoor-therapy-for-children-with-autism@0xB875...3309
Agreed here. Just say "Nouns" . Drop the wtf, its cleaner.
>
>
> Putting .wtf on a childrens play structure seems a little inappropriate ><
>
+1
> In favor of protecting the treasury but I'd like to see the floor play out. Price has dilluted, we know we're good at whimsy; I want Nouns to be bigger than it is. We need a little more data than a few days.
these look cute. event is good as well. I am abstaining since I would want Nouns to receive substantial royalties OR majority share of anything where it is funding production.
oversight-in-the-hands-of-the-community-⌐◨-◨
"This feels less like solving concentration of power, and more like moving it somewhere else."
+1
> "Hundreds" feels like a stretch. I also don’t see this as us vs them. I’m not on either side. I’m on the side of Nouns DAO working as intended.
>
> ‘Who is actually participating’ is subjective. Voting, posting, building, holding, all of these are different forms of participation, and the system has never required them to align. We’ve had many grant and gifted-noun recipients not vote long before BEM showed up, or just show up for their own proposals. That’s not new. And was basically impossible to get a reply from a Nounder (previously the largest token holders) so that's not new either.
>
> How is Nouncil ‘far more representative of the DAO’? The DAO is ultimately token holders. Nouncil holds one Noun. That doesn’t suddenly make it a better proxy for the broader set of stakeholders.
>
> This feels less like solving concentration of power, and more like moving it somewhere else.
>
> Giving veto to Nouncil is a funny meme, but I don’t think it actually addresses the underlying issue. Imo Admins hold veto or destroy it.
secret-ballot-voting-&-sealed-bid-auctions-for-nouns-dao
Its a deep R&D problem, although at nouns current scale the ROI doesn't exist. There is no scale.
Please consider a proposal where multiple (much larger) DAOs co-sponsor this as they all suffer from same problems and i know Nouns would be happy to chime in proportionately.
⌐◨-◨-x-🐧---nouns-coffee-—-a-pilot-collab-with-pudgy-penguins
+ Ask is modest.
- Every single of the "Communities" (sans Cool Cats maybe) still has 5x-20x more operational funds than Nouns atm. Given the bigger Pudgy reach that you point out and their memecoin sitting at half a billion in marketcap, they are a much better steward to give a grant on this vs Nouns. Unless this is already subsidized by pudgies.
Please consider asking Pudgies to co-sponsor this effort.
Overall Nouns shouldn't be funding production of goods only to make royalties in return. Thats not how IRL financing would work.
Feedback overall
- Please pull the budgeting summary up top.
- Please define exact % royalty you are suggesting if Nouns cover part of the production cost.
nounify-studio
As for doodles "this wasn't paid promotion" - it was a campaign driven top down from the top voices at Solana including Sol foundation. So definitely incentivised and not organic. Impressions data though is accurate and covered a wide part of the timeline.
nouns-×-octant-—-co‑funding-builders-sustainably@0x7f64...d6d2
* would be good to include .. Sorry typo.
>
>
> An estimate of potential yield generated would be good enough to understand.
>
> I believe this will be size-able or experiment worthy enough if the total yield generated can be around 200E or more a year (alongside other committing orgs ofcourse).
>
> Overall very supportive ,there were proposals in the past for doing this but never materialised so glad someone wants to lead charge on this.
>
nouns-×-octant-—-co‑funding-builders-sustainably
An estimate of potential yield generated would be good enough to understand.
I believe this will be size-able or experiment worthy enough if the total yield generated can be around 200E or more a year (alongside other committing orgs ofcourse).
Overall very supportive ,there were proposals in the past for doing this but never materialised so glad someone wants to lead charge on this.
mini-scholars-learning-center-x-nouns-dao-co-branding-partnership
where does this revenue USDC come from? Could you elaborate.
Your funding gap is minuscule, why come to Nouns compared to any other non-profit / for-profit org for this?
Thanks for taking the time to write this proposal.
--nouns-tv---decentralized-streaming-infrastructure-for-creators
While, It is a novel idea of an infra layer....
Sadly, media infra is the smallest of the problem here.
Nouns internally as a community are not big enough to warrant any dedicated media infrastructure built. You will need 100x the community size to justify it.
For this to even remotely be a thing - you need a vast and unique content library that gives potential non-nouns users a reason to come to you.
How do you compete with the likes of Tubi and Plutotv that have way bigger catalog and are even free? I didn't even mention nflx here intentionally.
a-nounish-laundromat
Does Nouns own the lease?
For example - doesn't Nouns get entirety of the cashflow until it fully recoups all costs and only then operators make anything.
Genuinely curious on the thought process.
+1
> We should take up gregskril’s advice and offer for help and resubmit this proposal. Greg is DevRel and long time contributor to ENS.
>
> Very supportive of this prop
@0xae47...5Fed
Just to be clear, Quack and Lola are never removing the noggles so this is a misconception that their nounish designs are hostage to receiving more funding from the DAO. It's not.
This specific prop has been purely a retro prop after seeing that there will be support if one was put. It is not connected to with any obligation of funding anything in the future. So i would like folks to vote purely from the scope of retroactive reward. Hopefully that makes sense.
We need more time to structurally and legally come up with a number + format that will make sense for DUNA if there is a revenue kickback involved in any future proposal. We just have not narrowed down to one approach yet.
>
>
> Prop should be resubmitted with permanent images imo so am voting against for that reason.
>
> not against paying $45k bonus here in theory but noted caveat that another proposal is coming:
>
> "We will come back after deliberating with the community for a forward-looking proposal for what doubling down could look like."
>
> Personally prefer more clarity upfront here, what does quack/lola actually need? If this $45k "makes no meaningful dent in [your] operating costs", what amount will follow up prop request? What does the future of Quack and Lola look like doubling down with Nouns? Is this going to cost us a million dollars next year if we want to keep the glasses, etc. Happy to fund if is clear what the costs are e.g:
>
> "We sent over 45-50K$ worth of merchandise (also covered shipping costs) to various Nouns funded projects to go along with the said collaborations." wasnt clear from prop
>
> Who was sent the $50k of merchandise? Can Nouns get some rev share on merch etc if we funding this? "We are now expanding and taking Quack and Lola to the next level of growth" can the DUNA become a part of this growth?
>
> Congrats on the success here, enjoy seeing the nounish ducks and enjoy following the nouns movie, just against this particular proposal format
>
> +1
>
> > ⌐◨-◨
Forgot to attach links for some additional references:
https://farcaster.xyz/thebower.eth/0x3e4916f1
https://x.com/davinoyesigye/status/1886329926988566739/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DBNJmYjBLB9/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DBtktGOtBj6/
Thank you all for the criticism. Appreciative of it.
I am responding with specific deeper context countering your arguments around value-flow so hopefully it dispels some of the myths.
Generally value flow? It's always either time or attention or monetary equivalent of both.
Nouns community engaging in Quack content, buying Quack merchandise = This is ofcourse appreciated a lot each time it happens but on pure statistics standpoint, this number is pretty small. (Pin-pointing - within Nouns community attributable engagement + revenue, we had probably a little under 2K$ in total retail value).
--
On the contrary:
- We have routinely given top of funnel shout-outs and collaborated with "nouns-funded" partner projects multiple times over last two years, a workstream for which we typically make mid 5-6 figures in brand collabs with unaffiliated 3P brands. We have strict policy around how many such things we would do yearly so dedicating these to Nouns affiliated is one of our methods of providing value back into the ecosystem.
- We sent over 45-50K$ worth of merchandise (also covered shipping costs) to various Nouns funded projects to go along with the said collaborations. All our ask has been consistently - is to make the shoutout contextual (include QnL in your activation) so its not a hard shill on unrelated topic. This stance will not be changing in the future.
--
Hopefully this is helpful.
+1
> zero doubt that nouns loves quack, lola, and atrium. it's a shining example of what's possible when strong teams build with nouns IP, and a partnership I hope lasts forever.
>
> that said..
>
> +1 to wylin's suggestion to reward atrium with treasury nouns instead of ETH. makes a lot of sense considering the DAO has supported atrium in the past, and they are now profitable.
>
> +1 to nadiecito and bixbite's points and ideas.
>
> would support a prop to reward quack & lola with treasury nouns and/or a prop for ETH if it funded ideas that leverage quack & lola's distribution to proliferate Nouns DAO and nounish stuff (beyond ⌐◨-◨ with no other reference). adding a link to the website is great low hanging fruit.
>
> +1
>
> > I don’t think we should set a precedent where, every few months, we feel the need to prove our appreciation through ETH — especially when the project itself is already a success story and the proposal states that the funds aren’t needed. Their growth and success already reflect both Nouns’ early support and their own hard work. That should speak for itself.
> >
> > Quack & Lola isn’t necessarily an onboarding tool, and it doesn’t have to be. They’re clearly using the Nouns IP well — the duck heads, the pink and blue noggles, the references are all there and recognizable to anyone within the community. What’s missing, though, is a clear path for people outside of it. As Bixbite mentioned, there’s no easy way for a normie who sees the show or their social content to trace it back to Nouns, to understand that this project was actually funded and inspired by the DAO. That connection shouldn’t feel forced, but it should exist.
> >
> > If a project has already been well supported and is thriving, that’s a success story — not a reason to keep rewarding it just to show that “we still care.” The DAO’s appreciation shouldn’t be measured in ETH, but in collaboration, gratitude, and in how we open space for new creators to grow from the same foundation that once helped them.
> >
> > That’s why I’m voting against — with full respect and appreciation for Atrium & co, and everything they’ve built with Quack & Lola. Their consistency and creative quality have proven the strength of the Nouns IP in ways that few others have.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > The concept of Nouns DAO is to fund public goods, cc0 art & fun wacky ideas that help to kickoff the flywheel... but if everyones focus is solely on extraction and not returning any monetary value back to the DAO when they can, then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Theres no denying Quack & Lola have become a success, and Nouns DAO has previously provided $129,593.73 towards helping scale this successful IP, but I'm failing to see where the flywheel affect is taking place. Nouns DAO has provided compensation, our community engages with all of Quack & Lola's content, have reached out to do collabs, and have purchased merchandise.... I think those are all pretty solid signals that Nouns still cares about the project.... but we're not mentioned anywhere on the website, we're not tagged in any posts, we have zero upside in the success of the project. Yes, the Noggles are being proliferated, but unfortunately Nouns has not reached the status of Nike or Adidas, no normie is seeing Quack's glasses and saying to themselves - ah yes, those are Nouns DAO Noggles. Quack & Lola have generated $1,500,000 in the last 12 months, and as it's mentioned This proposal doesn't make any meaningful dent in our operating costs, it's more to signal to the team that Nouns still cares and wants us to push harder. I'd rather see us continue to fund projects where our ETH can have an outsized impact vs just giving an early Christmas bonuses of $45k just for the sake of it.
>
> +1
>
> > The concept of Nouns DAO is to fund public goods, cc0 art & fun wacky ideas that help to kickoff the flywheel... but if everyones focus is solely on extraction and not returning any monetary value back to the DAO when they can, then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Theres no denying Quack & Lola have become a success, and Nouns DAO has previously provided $129,593.73 towards helping scale this successful IP, but I'm failing to see where the flywheel affect is taking place. Nouns DAO has provided compensation, our community engages with all of Quack & Lola's content, have reached out to do collabs, and have purchased merchandise.... I think those are all pretty solid signals that Nouns still cares about the project.... but we're not mentioned anywhere on the website, we're not tagged in any posts, we have zero upside in the success of the project. Yes, the Noggles are being proliferated, but unfortunately Nouns has not reached the status of Nike or Adidas, no normie is seeing Quack's glasses and saying to themselves - ah yes, those are Nouns DAO Noggles. Quack & Lola have generated $1,500,000 in the last 12 months, and as it's mentioned This proposal doesn't make any meaningful dent in our operating costs, it's more to signal to the team that Nouns still cares and wants us to push harder. I'd rather see us continue to fund projects where our ETH can have an outsized impact vs just giving an early Christmas bonuses of $45k just for the sake of it.
>
> +1
>
> > generally speaking I'm supportive.
> >
> > if the Atrium team is needing a gesture of reassurance, rather than actual funds, which in the proposal's own words won't make a dent outside of the signal of assurance, it may be more workable to ask for some number of treasury Nouns as a symbol of the DAO's faith in the team and desire to push forward
+1
> I don’t think we should set a precedent where, every few months, we feel the need to prove our appreciation through ETH — especially when the project itself is already a success story and the proposal states that the funds aren’t needed. Their growth and success already reflect both Nouns’ early support and their own hard work. That should speak for itself.
>
> Quack & Lola isn’t necessarily an onboarding tool, and it doesn’t have to be. They’re clearly using the Nouns IP well — the duck heads, the pink and blue noggles, the references are all there and recognizable to anyone within the community. What’s missing, though, is a clear path for people outside of it. As Bixbite mentioned, there’s no easy way for a normie who sees the show or their social content to trace it back to Nouns, to understand that this project was actually funded and inspired by the DAO. That connection shouldn’t feel forced, but it should exist.
>
> If a project has already been well supported and is thriving, that’s a success story — not a reason to keep rewarding it just to show that “we still care.” The DAO’s appreciation shouldn’t be measured in ETH, but in collaboration, gratitude, and in how we open space for new creators to grow from the same foundation that once helped them.
>
> That’s why I’m voting against — with full respect and appreciation for Atrium & co, and everything they’ve built with Quack & Lola. Their consistency and creative quality have proven the strength of the Nouns IP in ways that few others have.
>
> +1
>
> > The concept of Nouns DAO is to fund public goods, cc0 art & fun wacky ideas that help to kickoff the flywheel... but if everyones focus is solely on extraction and not returning any monetary value back to the DAO when they can, then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Theres no denying Quack & Lola have become a success, and Nouns DAO has previously provided $129,593.73 towards helping scale this successful IP, but I'm failing to see where the flywheel affect is taking place. Nouns DAO has provided compensation, our community engages with all of Quack & Lola's content, have reached out to do collabs, and have purchased merchandise.... I think those are all pretty solid signals that Nouns still cares about the project.... but we're not mentioned anywhere on the website, we're not tagged in any posts, we have zero upside in the success of the project. Yes, the Noggles are being proliferated, but unfortunately Nouns has not reached the status of Nike or Adidas, no normie is seeing Quack's glasses and saying to themselves - ah yes, those are Nouns DAO Noggles. Quack & Lola have generated $1,500,000 in the last 12 months, and as it's mentioned This proposal doesn't make any meaningful dent in our operating costs, it's more to signal to the team that Nouns still cares and wants us to push harder. I'd rather see us continue to fund projects where our ETH can have an outsized impact vs just giving an early Christmas bonuses of $45k just for the sake of it.
+1
> The concept of Nouns DAO is to fund public goods, cc0 art & fun wacky ideas that help to kickoff the flywheel... but if everyones focus is solely on extraction and not returning any monetary value back to the DAO when they can, then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Theres no denying Quack & Lola have become a success, and Nouns DAO has previously provided $129,593.73 towards helping scale this successful IP, but I'm failing to see where the flywheel affect is taking place. Nouns DAO has provided compensation, our community engages with all of Quack & Lola's content, have reached out to do collabs, and have purchased merchandise.... I think those are all pretty solid signals that Nouns still cares about the project.... but we're not mentioned anywhere on the website, we're not tagged in any posts, we have zero upside in the success of the project. Yes, the Noggles are being proliferated, but unfortunately Nouns has not reached the status of Nike or Adidas, no normie is seeing Quack's glasses and saying to themselves - ah yes, those are Nouns DAO Noggles. Quack & Lola have generated $1,500,000 in the last 12 months, and as it's mentioned This proposal doesn't make any meaningful dent in our operating costs, it's more to signal to the team that Nouns still cares and wants us to push harder. I'd rather see us continue to fund projects where our ETH can have an outsized impact vs just giving an early Christmas bonuses of $45k just for the sake of it.
Lots of good points here Humpty.
To be extra clear, this specific proposal is only retroactive reward. It's not doubling down on QnL. Just recognising the work done so far. For "doubling down" we might think of a different proposal but i do not have a concrete action plan put together for that proposal yet.
Atrium indeed plans to monetise and expand, thats how we stay around for decades and do not depend on grant monies to keep running. We already are sustainable.
Q&L have done the following for nouns funded projects:
- We have sent out many hundreds if not thousand+ merch units that are always sold out and big revenue driver for us, for free. To School, to variety charity, to esports etc. We did not even charge for shipping in most cases and ate the cost.
- We also amplified all these efforts whenever it was appropriately contextualised.
- We started exploring local events highlighting local venues (Nouns House in Brazil for their valentines day event). We want to do many more of these.
We do that for sponsorships with our brand partners that we do for free with nouns aligned projects.
Think of us as a giant top of funnel for nouns projects that could use our help for awareness.
All the projects have to do is contextualise how Quack and Lola fit into a collaboration together.
A straight up Nouns shill is not interesting and causes backlash. So have to be thoughtful on what we do.
retroactive-reward---quack-and-lola---past-21-months
Good observation Wylin. [Chiming in on behalf of team.]
For all practical purposes, actual funding patronage helps us do more not less - doesn't matter the size.
In-Kind Nouns granted can only be used for voting power instead and are illiquid for everyone involved (if team has no intention to sell them), we would then ask for equivalent amount or more in nouns in retro for the team size on this effort. Which i am not sure if fair ask.
This is a fairly modest ask for the activity organisation.
It definitely will be better to plan concretely for more UGC as that is where secret proliferation strength is.
We're proud to be teaming up with Visional Pop to push Quack and Lola ⌐◨-◨ into being a major global entertainment brand.
The collaboration will focus on new multi-platform content, consumer products, and digital experiences. 🌟
Team at Visional Pop (part of Visional Japan) comes with extensive experience at places like Sanrio, Youtube, Paramount, Turner. We are thrilled to partner with them and build an IP that's around for a 100 years and loved by people in a 100 countries!
Read more about the partnership below 👇
https://www.licenseglobal.com/new-media-social/visional-pop-atrium-partner-to-expand-quack-and-lola-animated-characters-globally
nouns-dao-x-pizzadao:-global-pizza-party-2025Guys,
1) Close to 25-30% of your budget is dedicated to nounish merch. I don't see what purpose it solves - having the DAO essentially "buying" merch from vendors and then you distributing it away for free to people? Is the DAO paying people to have these merch? Why not have a plan of procuring lesser SKU at wholesale or (lower even) , sell it at the event and recoup costs that way. Show there is some legit demand generation happening in a wholesome way?
2) Is Nouns footing the whole bill of this event ? Are there other co-sponsors, If yes - what is their contribution and whats your total budget.
make-flows.wtf-positive-sum
"Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
- Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
- Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
All Episodes from 1-5 can now be watched on Nouns.movie
https://nouns.movie/
- Episode 1-3 was published to be watched for free, Episode 4-5 have built in Tokengating on Nouns Movie website. To watch episode 4-5 , you can mint any open editions (available on both ETH mainnet and Base) and it allows you to watch the episode.
- We are 50 mins in total movie produced (a little over halfway).
- Marking this prop as complete, Will continue posting updates using Proposal 687 update stream.
Had to say it here so it stays onchain and gets conveyed.
In year 3, it makes no sense for Nouns to be the only entity footing the entire bill (2024 event was 1.9mil+ all funded by Nouns). You have got to get a separate sponsor while Nouns can play the part of title sponsor for this festival.
otherwise it feels like a commercially non-viable festival which doesn't happen next year if nouns stops paying the money.
--
Please consider taking time to find a co-sponsor and rework the budgeting here.
At least a trend or attempt towards decreasing DAO's funding liability here will go a long way. (By decreasing i don't mean cutting scope of festival which this prop did).
This would have looked so much different if there was another sponsor coming in with another 400k funding for the event side by side with Nouns.
— krel (on behalf of bonfire)
+1
> Atrium have shown huge committment, understanding, and ability to create awesome value for both Nouns and in their own ecosystem.
>
> Having a film under our collective belt, of this quality, for this cost, would be an amazing achievement.
>
> Atrium's commitment to cover part of the cost and turn the project sustainable as they did with Quack is admirable and promising
>
> Momentum is extremely important for production like this, I cant see a justification for putting the breaks on it so lets get it.
>
> I think Latsko's comments about finding ways to tell the meta story and reach wider audiences and build something on social media is advice worth heading, and it looks like it will be.
>
> Well done and good luck Supriyo and team! Good luck.
Generally supportive of the idea BUT stripy is correct. Considering market conditions , Eth preservation is the goal. Please consider re-proposing with USDC.
- Supriyo (On Behalf of bonfire)
+1
> USDC budget requesting ETH, since this proposal was submitted we are up 25% don’t think we should be sending ETH and praying people return the surplus when usdc can be requested
+1 !
- Supriyo (On Behalf of Bonfire)
+1
> I think we should actively be recruiting the best available talent (coders, artists, etc.) and make 'working with nouns' the best possible experience for them.
>
> this kind of small asks with potential big upside should be funded quickly and without hairsplitting. at the end of the day, great talent, when neglected, will just find other projects to work with.
>
> tbh, I don't care so much for what Yukigesho can do for nouns.sh (tho it looks great!), but all the new ideas he'll have in the process and what new project/client/tool may come out of it!
- Supriyo (Voting FOR on behalf of Bonfire)
+1
> David is an extraordinary individual with bold dreams, and those are the type of projects that has a chance of creating nounish waves for years and even decades. Thanks for coming back with a revised prop.
+1
> David was here day 01 and contributed to the genesis of nouns big time. Love the plush!
>
> +1
>
> > Having followed David's incredible career as fans, we can confidently say that few are as well-suited as David to lead this charge and opportunity for Nouns. David’s experience in building brands, IP and relationships over the years makes him an invaluable asset to Nouns and would benefit future projects across the DAO.
+1
> I think David has the market knowledge, clout, and Nouns receipts to make it happen. Know there have been questions about what David has said about his work in the past but I think he's been very proactive and transparent afaik about those days and how he got plugged in. He's been in the details. I've learned more about the niche business of plush from a pro. Can't beat that :)
>
> Looking forward to seeing this level of detail over the next year+ on propdates and on /nouns, les geddit.
Impressed by Voadz and Nero's previous prop execution.
Public governance installation is neat and thought provoking for those that will interact with it.
Nounish Goods have no real pathway today to reach fans IRL (unless prop teams individually can pull off running a high footfall ecomm store).
Feels comfortable backing this one as a genuine Nounish hub in South-east Asia.
- Supriyo (Voting FOR on behalf of Bonfire)
Will has summed this up already.
Artists need a choice, not forced into an minting experiment by anons permissionlessly minting pointers to their tracks.
This is also dubious ground for record labels to act against and by extension DAO supporting such experiment.
Check Song.tech (Similar experiment on base for traction reference).
- Supriyo (Voting AGAINST on behalf of Bonfire)
+1
> I love the energy here and am very supportive of efforts to find alternative, more sustainable compensation models for artists. I do think that when one of crypto’s biggest narratives is “We make more money for artists”, a narrative of “Nouns funds piracy” is too high a risk of being interpreted in bad faith. I’ve personally seen even the most benign of crypto efforts (like buying books) be turned into attack lines outside the industry.
>
> (That being said, the narrative is clever marketing for how provocative it is, but funding it is narratively charged too)
- Supriyo (Voting FOR on behalf of Bonfire)
+1
> i feel that this prop offers a valuable opportunity to test an irl format that we haven’t fully explored before.
>
> 1. new territory for irl: our experience with media and code has proven successful, but irl remains largely unexplored for us. this prop gives us a chance to test a new format and gather data on how irl initiatives perform. if this experiment doesn’t work out, we’ll have important information to rethink our approach to irl projects.
> 2. proven team: the proposal is from a long-term, proven team that has contributed successfully in the past. this gives me confidence that the experiment will be rigorously tested and managed effectively.
> 3. data-driven insights: if the experiment in rio doesn’t yield the expected results, it will provide crucial data on irl strategies, helping us make more informed decisions for future projects.
> 4. alignment with nouns values: the prop aligns with our values by focusing on community impact and engagement.
>
> while i lean towards conservatively managing spending, the potential benefits and the valuable data we could gain from this experiment make it a worthwhile investment. it’s a strategic move to explore untested areas and gain insights for future initiatives.
+1
> The reduction of the stream from 15 months to 3 months certainly makes this more palatable. The reno budget still feels high for what’s being undertaken.
>
> That said, we're happy to give the team the benefit of the doubt. We love the concept and are big believers in IRL, obviously…
>
> Good luck to the team :)
Just wanted to add a comment for clarity (also leaving it onchain) for others to see if and when this proposal comes back (i hope they will).
Atrium put a lot of resources of it's own to bring Quack where it is today which goes far beyond the Nouns retro-grant we received after 6 months of bootstrapping that IP this January. So from pure funding perspective, we might be doing a disservice to ourselves by comparing perceived funding ask vs actuals from both of these initiatives.
David's approach is different and what worked for Quack will not work here since this is going for a different kind of consumer cohort who discover the cloud (with some overlaps ofcourse).
Nouns being an open brand, means multiple initiatives can mold their very own versions and all still be wildly successful in their own ways.
---
As for the design, contrary to popular opinion, i think its always better to let the experts take the call / creative veto (in this case David) and as a community, Nouns being comfortable with such delegation.
Design by committee is a disastrous route and never in history has worked out in favor of any character IP i have known or seen play out in practice.
+1
> Like many, very on the fence about this prop. I'm against in current form but eager to see David make changes and bring it back soon. David is proven in the plushie space and has the media reciepts. I've really enjoyed learning more about the niche, esp having a kid who seems to find these sorts of plushies when we go to a museum.
>
> But I can't get past the large funding ask without clear milestones, no logistics on streaming funds or securing them to a multisig (or both ideally for a project of this size) to ensure post-funding accountability.
>
> I agree with some of the feedback noting this plushie perceived quality vs. UglyDolls. And that other Nounish projects like Quack have done similar work for much less.
>
> There's also very little clearly spelled out re: how this prop will result in more Nouns being bought (ideally directly through proceeds with some PNL outline) as we've talked about the legal clarity issues. Buying Nouns is the clearest way to give back proceeds w/o Howie issues.
>
> David provided a lot of context re: what happened between 2022 and now. I believe he's aligned with the mission and cares, but I'd like to see more skin in the game: I think David should scoop a Noun, do as much to leverage his network to hype Nouns, and build back some good will while re-working this prop.
>
> Overall huge fan and I want folks like David to
We are so excited to share that [@nounsmovie](https://x.com/nounsmovie/status/1831479947397116204) has been selected in two more film festivals this summer to screen as part of the official selection. Episode 1-2-3 will play at the Animaze Montreal International Film Festival 2024 and the Kids First! 2024 Film Festival.
#### Popular Jury Notes from Kids First! (For Kids, Judged by a Kids Jury)
---
> I really enjoyed The Rise of Blus. The beginning with the fish is really cute and the way he runs across everything to get to the bus or train that he missed is really cool.
> Wow! That is all I can say about this animation! It is off-the-charts fantastic!!!! The imagination behind these images is just wildly fantastic - from the floating city to the characters. This story takes place in the future and the characters, the floating building, the cars moving across lines connecting the buildings and backgrounds are all super futuristic. Noticeable is how well the mouths of the characters move in perfect synchronization with the dialogue. In addition, the movements of the characters are perfectly executed. The details of Noun’s room are also spot on and appropriate for a young preteen boy. The closeups on his face - perfect. Noun’s traverse across the community is nothing short of spectacular and compares with any movie chase scene in the most extraordinary way as he jumps from building to building, grabs a ride on a blowfish, and moves like a Parkour pro. I like how the characters are different colors and some of them are in animal or robot form. The evil characters look really evil - with shark-like teeth, or heads that look like skeletons, and mean sounding voices. The storyline unravels a tale of how Nouns is approaching a coming-of-age moment when his fate will be revealed by the Noggle, but when he visits his dad at his work place, he realizes that something is terribly off. This short film is inconclusive at the end with a “to be continued” message. So, we will have to wait for subsequent episodes and I can’t wait. It’s that good!
> The film’s message is that you never know who people really are or what they might be up to.
I give The Rise of Blus : A Nouns Movie 3.5 out of 5 stars and recommend it for ages 5 to 12, plus adults. By Janie and Julie S., KIDS FIRST!
---
### Laurels so far
