# Camp operational costs 2026/2027
Putting up this prop to assess the community’s appetite for keeping Nouns Camp running.
Im happy to keep Camp around as long as we can cover operational costs. Im also happy to sunset if the product has run its course and the community has other/better tools at their disposal.
**Budget:**
- Monthly costs 350 usd \* 18 = 6300 usd
- Other costs: 2200 usd
- Total: 8500 usd
# Sunsetting Camp?
Hi,
Since client incentives dried up its too costly for us to keep Camp running indefinitely. Give or take, keeping Camp operational costs us about 350 usd per month.
I would be happy to keep Camp running if we can cover these costs via personal donations or passing a proposal with the DAO.
Im also happy to sunset if the community has other equal/better tools at their disposal and Camp has become redundant.
Let me know what you think is the best path forward. Thank you!sunsetting-camp?
# Launching Nouns Grants
Today, we're launching Nouns Grants (nounsgrants.com), a new product from the team behind Camp.
Nouns Grants is our shot at reimagining Nouns as a leading grantmaking org. It's a vision of Nouns where our unique, community-driven grant process stands at the center, and everything else is secondary.
We want to be the best in the world at getting funds into good hands, at scale. That is our mission. It's how we make an impact and uplift Nouns as a symbol for a better future. It's how we find a deeper purpose in everything we do.
We believe Nouns is only as valuable as our grantmaking process — our ability to attract, evaluate and fund good people and projects, and our consistency and predictability in growing these operations over time.
Read more: [https://nounsgrants.com/voters](https://nounsgrants.com/voters)
Practically speaking, Nouns Grants is a new interface for creating proposals. It turns the typical open-ended DAO proposal into a straightforward application form that anyone can get through.
The new format makes use of video, a standardized application form, and a flat grant amount. We believe it's imperative that we make our operations more metrics-driven, proposals easier to evaluate, and that we push applicants towards authenticity.
With Nouns Grants, we're taking a first step to demonstrate Nouns as an effective capital allocator, with a solid understanding of our own growth levers and ready for scale.
When we first set out to build Nouns Grants, one of our design goals was to completely remove crypto touchpoints for the end-user. While Nouns Camp is a crypto-native product built for an internal audience, we wanted to take Grants in the completely opposite direction. The result is an application process where anyone with an internet connection can apply for a grant, regardless of crypto familiarity or technical know-how.
We use email signup (Privy) and smart wallet creation (Coinbase) at the moment the user applies. This setup allows us to sponsor gas fees and, using delegated actions, circumvents the need to introduce foreign concepts like candidate promotion or transaction failure to the end user.
You can play around with the interface at the [https://sepolia.nounsgrants.com/](https://sepolia.nounsgrants.com/) test network.
Next steps —
Today's launch is not the final form of Nouns Grants. It's a starting point for Nouns as the world's leading grantmaking org.
We need your help to get nounsgrants.com in front of people so we can learn, iterate, and improve. Share it with your audience and followers, friends, and family. Your contributions truly make a difference, and the further we can reach outside of the crypto-sphere, the better. Thank you <3
---
I'm doing an AMA/community call on Nouns Grants and our vision for Nouns today (Friday), 4 PM ET: [https://discord.gg/JGPeHwnJ](https://discord.gg/JGPeHwnJ).
If there's demand, we'll do another one next week.launching-nouns-grants
Id gladly spend 1M on 10 hyper-determined teams each trying to fix Nouns in their own way. All wont work out, but maybe one of them actually manage to right the ship and change the trajectory of Nouns.
So while I also dont think Flows is the sole project capable of changing trajectory of Nouns, I do think its the correct mindset to have.
Im not sure Flows will succeed in their mission. Hard things are rarely certain. But I think those are the type of inwards-looking investments we should bet on and encourage.
+1
> Thanks for the proposal and the teaser video, I liked it. Here's a summary I've had with a few other folks:
>
> As others have mentioned, I don't think it's feasible that this prop onboard 200+ active members. We maybe have 100 active members as it stands, and that's fine. The best thing we could do is attract funding.
>
> We should shift our goals away from "how do we onboard as many new members as possible" to "how can we ensure our treasury has enough consistent funding so we can continue to fund cool ideas".
>
> Perhaps one path towards this goal is if nouns is okay with funding art for arts sake. In this case it doesn't really matter if your play onboards new members -- we would want to support it because we want to support the best art possible, regardless of how "nounish" it is. I actually think the play is better if there's absolutely no requirement that it focus on nouns. "Sponsored by nouns" would be enough. The idea would be that nouns gets some sort of social capital for having funded good art. I actually think the better approach in this case is not to have the play (or the art more generally) have to have noggles, or be about nouns, as then it has a better chance of having broad appeal and thus a higher chance nouns can start building social capital for being a purveyer of great art.
>
> The argument then follows that by building brand / social capital for nouns through funding the best possible art, maybe we can attract larger donors who are willing to help fill our treasury because they like what we've funded and curated and would like to see nouns continue to serve that role.
>
> Maybe like the a24 approach. Every film is not "a24 this, a24 that". The films themselves are not obsessively jamming a24 down your throat. Yet, they've become synonymous with a certain indie cool aesthetic in film such that people will seek out films just bc a24 produced it. Nouns could be the same. Not every piece of art needs to be SUPER NOUNISH and in fact it's probably better if they are not. Rather, over time nouns builds up social capital and a reputation for having funded great art such that if a new piece drops that is funded by nouns, our following of fans would want to see or appreciate the art sheerly because they trust our taste.
>
> my 2c
+1
> It always feels a little off when event sponsorship proposals show up just a week before the event. It makes it seem like Nouns is just an afterthought, used more as a last-minute way to cover costs rather than something they truly wanted to build around.
>
> Events should be proposing months in advance so the broader community has time to actually get excited and contribute. It also gives the proposer time to hit proper production timelines and lets us, as a DAO, actually maximize the opportunity.
canonical-nouns-discord-comebackSomewhat crude thoughts below — i think this is an important discussion to have, especially since many current community participants were not around during the OG Nouns discord era (or at least didnt have access to token-gated channels, where most of the issues arose).
The way i see it, the biggest problem with an 'official' discord server is that it inevitably becomes a toxic battleground where people who dont like each other, and/or stand very far apart on core discussion points, compete for mindshare and dao control. An analogy would be forcing reps and dems (and lunatics) to live in the same house. In my experience you never really resolve anything, you just go in circles fighting the same battle over and over, but with less good faith and more toxicity for every cycle. Sort of like twitter, but if twitter was 200 people and most your close friends, family, users or colleagues.
This problem is accentuated if members feel entitled to join (eg token holders) or if banning troublesome members is awkward. Spreading control across voter blocks, parties, etc doesn't help resolve this issue, it makes it worse. Pinning ownership on the duna admins also does not help, it just puts them in a terrible position when inevitable things to south.
Perhaps my main gripe is the idea that an official discord can/should be 'neutral'. That does not work, it simply enables max PVP. 'More moderation' does not help because that breaches the core value of being neutral. Credible neutrality is not compatible with discord servers.
The reason the original discord was shut down is because it notably made nouns culture worse. Its not because the moderators were lazy or absent. We have cultural problems now too, but im hesitant to speedrun the same cultural missteps we took in '21-22.
That said, im not against the idea of a "perfectly functioning discord" per se, I just want to highlight the actual issues and urge anyone excited about going down this path to come up with plausible arguments/rules to resolve the 'eventual toxic battleground' issue.
While not a full or perfect solution, I think having (multiple) 'private' and opinionated servers is the better model. Nouncil does this well. Nouns.gg too. Private (not necessarily closed!) servers where there is no pretense of neutrality or entitlement by token holders etc has an advantage as they can do whatever is good for the servers growth/health/utility.
+1
> I am pro sock.
>
> I am also pro Nouns compensating trait submissions.
>
> I prefer the design in this proposal as it is, than the remixes i've seen.
>
> +1
>
> > @0x021e...F4e4
> >
> > I can't see how charging for it would increase the quality bar. The payment comes from a shared resource (treasury), so voters don't really feel any pain when paying (that's probably why the DAO is a bit reckless with expenses to start with 😅), and if anything, adding comp will make the props more contentious and prone to infighting.
> >
> > I think mixing up financial incentives with adding traits is a bit of a killjoy. It taints the pure creative and fun energy with the expectation of returns.
> >
> > Remember "do good with no expectation of return"? I think it's there for a reason, and we should care for it.
> >
> > That being said, I'm not advocating for no comp whatsoever for artists. We run Noundry rounds for that reason, and we actually reinvest client rewards from Noundry props into those contests to keep the flywheel going.
> >
> > Not only traits that make it into the DAO are worth rewarding, so let's keep this process more inclusive and not tie rewards with making it onchain.
> >
> > I would also be in favor of gifting a Noun to artists who made art contributions in the past (instead of a Noun per trait, which feels excessive), and I think it's in the DAO's best interest because then they won't have to pay the candidate creation fee when proposing new traits to the DAO. That's how we keep Noundry going.
> >
> > This is already an exciting moment for mindtoasted. Please don't downvote the prop because "he should ask for comp" because that will just have the opposite effect of turning a good moment into something weird and filled with drama.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Im kinda fond of this sock, but imo we must keep the threshold for accepted nouns traits higher by making sure the DAO has to pay for them, even if its in treasury Nouns.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > i suggest to trade this sock head for a boot headed noun, perhaps this one in treasury? : https://www.probe.wtf/en-US/nouns/212
>
> +1
>
> > linking here for visibility. wdyt?
> > https://warpcast.com/brettdrawsstuff/0x98277f4e
+1
> Tough vote. I've supported Kendama in the past and think it can be a good fit. That said, I'm going against for a few reasons:
>
> 1. Rounds.wtf isn’t a great fit here. The Kendama scene lives on Instagram, and I haven’t seen much effort to grow there. The last campaign felt internal, with little community reach.
>
> 2. I wish this was written in first person. Did Teodore even write it?
>
> 3. Satori being both DUNA admin and the largest token holder of Kendama DAO feels like a conflict. Would prefer more separation there.
Id like to see this project become reality but I dont feel confident enough in the proposed budget and some of the planning details.
Breaking this project down into separate deliverables (and separate proposals) might be better to both de-risk the daos investment and increase overall chance of completion.
+1
> I noticed im confused about a meta issue so just laying out my thoughts here:
> - Im supportive of this in theory
> - I voted for volky and gh access
> - But i still find myself unconvinced about voting on things where we just create social debt. Even if the duna admin acts as execution layer, is this the path we want to go down? Do we really want those types of votes to be a frequent occurrence?
who-controls-culture?-a-nouns-powered-satirical-theatre-production-celebrating-molièreHey! 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.
I think its definitely +EV for Nouns to continue to support this experiment in some way. Flows is one of those products that attempt to course-correct Nouns and thats exactly the type of energy and operators we want. So ultimately I think we should give rocketman and team more rope here, im just unsure about the specifics, hence abstaining this time.
things-worth-fixing@0xb2b7...5E9D
thanks for thoughts ricky!
> Loved your reflection, especially the focus on turning Nouns into a more functional and efficient "product." I’ve been thinking about something complementary that might reinforce this idea: what if, instead of just improving governance and internal operations, we also explored more *traditional* (and even bold) ways to generate real-world sales tied to the Nouns universe?
>
> **Just brainstorming here: should we start using traditional methods to boost the treasury?**
> For example: *phygital* (physical + digital) limited edition products, collectibles, or even random Nouns-inspired products created *by the community*, connected to a Noun from the treasury.
> But with a more structured approach, where **the DAO itself operates the “Nouns Store”** (or some branded site), and a community member is **hired as an actual team member** to manage the operation. After covering costs, **100% of the net profit** would be sent to the treasury monthly, along with a transparent report.
> No proposers will own the store, will be an employee.
>
> If we could replicate this model in some of the world’s major cities, with a modest budget for local and digital marketing, it could not only bring real revenue into the treasury, but also create physical touchpoints for people to experience Nouns. **A store, a gallery, a studio, a vending machine... everything is valid as an MVP.** The key is to test and iterate.
>
> I also fully agree with the idea of creating **specialized sub-divisions within Nouncil**, focused by area (governance, product, art, IRL, etc).
> Instead of trying to solve everything at once, we could empower smaller, focused groups, with clear ownership, to take charge of strategic initiatives like this store or products.
>
> The more we manage to decentralize with **focus and real accountability**, the more progress we’ll see. And we can do all this without losing the core spirit of the project: a creative playground, but with just enough structure to be functional, relevant, and attractive to new contributors.
things-worth-fixing@0x2feb...Ed6a
thanks for reading! <3
> Thanks for the thoughtful text and your work on Nouns.Camp, Krel. ⌐◨-◨ \m/
>
> I believe we now have a solid foundation to implement practical improvements: fixed proposal cycles with themes, predefined categories and budgets, simplified forms, and support bots for review and proposer communication (not to limit development but perhaps to ensure?) . I also support a clear onboarding journey for new holders, with affiliate groups, email updates, and direct integration channels, a welcome at the Nouns level... professional but fun.
>
> Even though this whole mf NOUNS thing started as an experiment (as i know), it absolutely can and should scale with more structure... we’ve got the builders and the knowhow, plus a strong community. It's about improving 1% every day on top of this solid foundation. The onchain moment (and the world) is volatile, so rather than waiting for stability, we should keep building it daily, beyond just projects and proposals.. even more so now with the strong sands that will be moved by the DUNE.
>
> Maybe these topics could be explored in a new kind of forum? Like a Nouncil, but focused on DAO health, strategic maintenance, and collective system review rather than prop presentations?
>
> Thanks for sharing, it's something we talk about at Gnars too, at least some of us. Aloha.
things-worth-fixing@0x2897...c84F
yeah i feel pretty confident about the problems (including all the things you listed), less so about the antidotes
gut says high degree of automation is the end-game, but bearish on our ability to make sweeping leaps there, i think its gotta be gradual
> great write up. speaking to the governance side specifically:
>
> i'm pretty convinced that relying on large proposals as our grant-giving mechanism is fundamentally flawed. too much effort required from voters, can only pay a small # of builders, lots of back scratching/collusion, not enough accountability, people take votes personally, the list goes on.
>
> maybe ai can manage everyone's preferences as a delegate, but the experience as a builder would still be subpar. my hunch is trying to bandaid it with improvements won't change the core problem of exchanging very high effort from voters for medium signal funding.
>
> will do some more thinking today, but gut says skeuomorphic political mechanisms are not a good path. proposed solutions seem to add more complexity to an already confusing product for builders
This might be unfair to rocketman and team as its more of a meta-gripe but I wish this proposal was more like:
"We did this, this and that, accomplishing impactful thing x and growing primary metric y. We want to continue to build the best way for Nouns to do z and asking for $x to last us another 6 months."
I get the feeling good teams that "should" be renewed shoot themselves in the foot by being too flowery and unintentionally end up obfuscating the info that actually matter.
Its easier for me to vote For giving Flows team 6 months of runway based on past achievements than it is to "approve" everything in this prop.
I noticed im confused about a meta issue so just laying out my thoughts here:
- Im supportive of this in theory
- I voted for volky and gh access
- But i still find myself unconvinced about voting on things where we just create social debt. Even if the duna admin acts as execution layer, is this the path we want to go down? Do we really want those types of votes to be a frequent occurrence?
# Things worth fixing
I've become increasingly convinced that the way for us to solve our capital inflow concerns is to improve Nouns as a 'product'. I believe a well-functioning, efficient 'cash distribution platform' where anyone can insert a dollar and see it turned into meaningful positive-sum outcomes is bound to attract capital. Such a system is inherently valuable; it's worth owning and maintaining.
It seems to me that a mature product facilitating efficient day-to-day operations is a necessary ingredient for Nouns growth. Granted, it might not be sufficient for us to succeed, but its hard to see how a dysfunctional product could ever reach any notable heights or attract capital at scale.
Is Nouns really dysfunctional in its current form? I think by most metrics, yes. Many of the things I loved about early-stage Nouns, like our vote-with-reason culture, are now looking more like liabilities and our product and operations has failed to keep up with the continuously changing texture of Nouns.
To be fair, I think there is a parallel path where we treat Nouns more literally as an art project with a shelf-life. Instead of making any major overhauls we ride out the treasury into the sunset. I'm not entirely opposed to this idea, but my feeling is that most people who tune into Nouns on warpcast, discord, or camp on a daily basis want more. Going to great lengths to transform Nouns into a DUNA seems like a clear indication that we as a community want to see Nouns truly succeed, grow, and be relevant.
I cant claim to have concrete solutions for how to improve our product, but I can provide a few intuitions as to the direction we should take in search of answers.
**Streamline and automate day-to-day operations**
I believe our ad-hoc approach to governance had a sweet spot during the NFT hype cycle when attention, brainpower, curiosity, and overall energy levels were abundant. For the past 1-2 years I think it has become mostly clear that our critical day-to-day operations are running on life-support and won't scale unless addressed. Together with the Camp team, I've spent a lot of my time trying to patch these issues via better UI, better tooling, and better ways to funnel our collective energy (recently via Topics).
But my lasting impression is that there is something inherently wrong with the ad-hoc approach to proposing and voting. I adore it, but I don't think it works for the type of project Nouns has become. Nouns changed from an NFT project with an incidental group-owned treasury to make the NFT project better, to a collectively owned make-a-wish program with an experimental brand-building exercise attached. Our tools and operations were made to suit the former.
How do we address this? I'm not sure, but I think we should make big swings to try things like proposal application forms, pre-defined grant funding amounts, and deploy AI to help summarize and sense-make. At some point, AI is likely to provide a path to full or semi-automation, but my hunch is that we are better off improving the time-intensive parts of governance rather than outsourcing the entire voting process. At least to start. Trying to automate a fundamentally flawed process seems like a path to disaster and we need to be more selective and clever with our use of AI.
**Outcome-based sub-communities and resource allocation**
I'm also interested in the idea of voting pools or 'delegation guilds' that have a specific goal and agenda rather than trying to replicate the brokenness of Nouns governance on a smaller scale. To paint a picture, instead of Nouncil being a microcosm of mainNouns with all its disagreements, fragmented visions, and social constructs, it would be better if Nouncil split into 3-4 smaller highly coherent and efficient entities with unified ideas about the meaning of Nouns, what to fund, etc. The political multi-party system is probably a decent shorthand for how this would function, and I argue a better state than everyone trying to control and ideologically steer a single party.
Another idea that I think is worth exploring is allocating a percentage of treasury funds to a specific cause. For example, we could earmark a flat $200k, or a fraction of recurring inflow to spend on 'art projects' for the next 6 months. The intention would be to agree up-front on high-level funding decisions rather than having to retrace arguments and disagreements on a per-proposal basis.
Zooming back out, one of my strongest intuitions is that we should make those changes in order to free up voters' time and attention and refocus our efforts on meta-governance. 90% of our energy should go to strategy and long-term problem solving as well as the odd turning point proposal or large investment bet.
**Onboarding of new token holders**
In addition to direct changes in how we operate, I think we have much to gain from better onboarding of new token holders. At the moment of purchase, we should provide new members with easy ways to a) stay up to date (via email?), b) make their voting power count, and c) find their enclave within the larger ecosystem. The aforementioned voting pools could perhaps play a big role here.
**Peer support networks**
Lastly, I think we should make strides to create better peer support networks. The most direct impact here might be to support grant recipients mentally and operationally to increase project success rates. Over time, however, I imagine Nouns will gain from creating intangible benefits to being a grant recipient that goes beyond access to hard cash. Receiving a grant from Nouns should be prestigious in and of itself.
Making headway on some of these issues would be reason for me to stay optimistic about the future of Nouns.things-worth-fixingnull
# Things worth fixing
I've become increasingly convinced that the way for us to solve our capital inflow concerns is to improve Nouns as a 'product'. I believe a well-functioning, efficient 'cash distribution platform' where anyone can insert a dollar and see it turned into meaningful positive-sum outcomes is bound to attract capital. Such a system is inherently valuable; it's worth owning and maintaining.
It seems to me that a mature product facilitating efficient day-to-day operations is a necessary ingredient for Nouns growth. Granted, it might not be sufficient for us to succeed, but its hard to see how a dysfunctional product could ever reach any notable heights or attract capital at scale.
Is Nouns really dysfunctional in its current form? I think by most metrics, yes. Many of the things I loved about early-stage Nouns, like our vote-with-reason culture, are now looking more like liabilities and our product and operations has failed to keep up with the continuously changing texture of Nouns.
To be fair, I think there is a parallel path where we treat Nouns more literally as an art project with a shelf-life. Instead of making any major overhauls we ride out the treasury into the sunset. I'm not entirely opposed to this idea, but my feeling is that most people who tune into Nouns on warpcast, discord, or camp on a daily basis want more. Going to great lengths to transform Nouns into a DUNA seems like a clear indication that we as a community want to see Nouns truly succeed, grow, and be relevant.
I cant claim to have concrete solutions for how to improve our product, but I can provide a few intuitions as to the direction we should take in search of answers.
**Streamline and automate day-to-day operations** I believe our ad-hoc approach to governance had a sweet spot during the NFT hype cycle when attention, brainpower, curiosity, and overall energy levels were abundant. For the past 1-2 years I think it has become mostly clear that our critical day-to-day operations are running on life-support and won't scale unless addressed. Together with the Camp team, I've spent a lot of my time trying to patch these issues via better UI, better tooling, and better ways to funnel our collective energy (recently via Topics).
But my lasting impression is that there is something inherently wrong with the ad-hoc approach to proposing and voting. I adore it, but I don't think it works for the type of project Nouns has become. Nouns changed from an NFT project with an incidental group-owned treasury to make the NFT project better, to a collectively owned make-a-wish program with an experimental brand-building exercise attached. Our tools and operations were made to suit the former.
How do we address this? I'm not sure, but I think we should make big swings to try things like proposal application forms, pre-defined grant funding amounts, and deploy AI to help summarize and sense-make. At some point, AI is likely to provide a path to full or semi-automation, but my hunch is that we are better off improving the time-intensive parts of governance rather than outsourcing the entire voting process. At least to start. Trying to automate a fundamentally flawed process seems like a path to disaster and we need to be more selective and clever with our use of AI.
**Outcome-based sub-communities and resource allocation** I'm also interested in the idea of voting pools or 'delegation guilds' that have a specific goal and agenda rather than trying to replicate the brokenness of Nouns governance on a smaller scale. To paint a picture, instead of Nouncil being a microcosm of mainNouns with all its disagreements, fragmented visions, and social constructs, it would be better if Nouncil split into 3-4 smaller highly coherent and efficient entities with unified ideas about the meaning of Nouns, what to fund, etc. The political multi-party system is probably a decent shorthand for how this would function, and I argue a better state than everyone trying to control and ideologically steer a single party.
Another idea that I think is worth exploring is allocating a percentage of treasury funds to a specific cause. For example, we could earmark a flat $200k, or a fraction of recurring inflow to spend on 'art projects' for the next 6 months. The intention would be to agree up-front on high-level funding decisions rather than having to retrace arguments and disagreements on a per-proposal basis.
Zooming back out, one of my strongest intuitions is that we should make those changes in order to free up voters' time and attention and refocus our efforts on meta-governance. 90% of our energy should go to strategy and long-term problem solving as well as the odd turning point proposal or large investment bet.
**Onboarding of new token holders** In addition to direct changes in how we operate, I think we have much to gain from better onboarding of new token holders. At the moment of purchase, we should provide new members with easy ways to a) stay up to date (via email?), b) make their voting power count, and c) find their enclave within the larger ecosystem. The aforementioned voting pools could perhaps play a big role here.
**Peer support networks** Lastly, I think we should make strides to create better peer support networks. The most direct impact here might be to support grant recipients mentally and operationally to increase project success rates. Over time, however, I imagine Nouns will gain from creating intangible benefits to being a grant recipient that goes beyond access to hard cash. Receiving a grant from Nouns should be prestigious in and of itself.
Making headway on some of these issues would be reason for me to stay optimistic about the future of Nouns.things-worth-fixing
Appreciative of Nerman, Joel and team but i think its hard to justify spending more resources here.
+1
> I think it's a pretty poor use of funds. Right now, the main thing Nerman does is help with Nouncil, and let's face it, that could be handled by one person setting up votes when proposals come in. Plus, submitting votes on-chain is still something a person has to do.
>
> Do we believe they can market this to other communities and grow its usage?
>
> Even if it took off, what's in it for our DAO? Sure, branding it as a nounish governance tool could make it more appealing, but does that help drive auctions, add value for current holders, or bring any return on investment? At best, it seems like a public good meant to make the world better. If that's the aim, perhaps $67k could be spent more effectively elsewhere.
make-flows.wtf-positive-sum@0x6a02...80F4
+1, big fan of flows but largely agree w volkys reasoning here
> @0x2897...c84F
>
> > increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
>
> I think increasing the flows budget is a simpler pathway to growing the pie right now, and a safer bet for the DAO. And there's already a pathway, although less explicit, for Builders to grow the pie: it's via proliferating Nouns and referring new people back to the DAO
>
> Flows is the best experiment for reliably doing good things in the world and realizing the purpose of the DAO I've seen yet. We should double down on it.
>
> But I don't think it's time to make considerable changes to the protocol. It has been operating for only 6 months, and this is too soon to get an accurate read on the current strategy.
>
> I'm also not confident we really know what's happening inside flows right now. We need better data and better dashboards.
>
> My feeling is we're overwhelmingly relying on AIs to oversee the whole operation, and I see little action from curators. I doubt that strategy works in the long term because as builders learn how to optimize those automated metrics they become meaningless (Goodhart's Law).
>
> I think before we step up the protocol, we need to establish a culture of due diligence and ensure we're funding the things we should be funding. Curators are the only sustainable way of keeping a high bar on the impact of funded builders, so we've got to ensure there are enough of them and that they're active.
>
> Can you share data on curator activity across all flows? I think we're missing that data, and it would tell us a lot about the current state of the protocol.
>
> important metrics:
> - curator diversity/vote concentration per flow
> - number of votes per flow
> - overall distribution of flow scores (histogram)
> - how many flows have been challenged. how many continued vs were cancelled
> - how is this data trending historically? are we consistently attracting more builders, more curators?
>
> I'm very supportive of Flows, but not convinced of the plan laid out in this proposal yet. That data might convince me.
>
>
> > @0x7f64...d6d2
> >
> > We've mostly seen builders collab / share resources when it's explicitly incentivized eg: in the Builder Kits flow. Outside of that, there's been competition because flows is zero sum, everyone is fighting over fixed budget / attention from nouners for votes.
> >
> > That's what we're trying to solve with this prop. The structure of flows doesn't incentivize anyone to work together, because there's no way to grow the pie. It's hard to get any quantitative data for you given that fact. I'll let @jango chime in on revnets in general
> >
> > re: increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> > >
> > >
> > > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> > >
> > > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> > >
> > > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
> > "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.
art-ideas-⌐◨-◨#1 seems pretty easy to get behind, the problem i run into is that someone at those organizations (art institutes/galleries, schools, clubs, brands, etc) need to care and/or have an interesting idea for what to do with the Noun or it doesnt really accomplish much?
I think i would approach this from the perspective of "do we know [specific person] at [specific org] who really wants a Noun for [idea/purpose x]?". If and when we do, imo it should be an easy For to distribute. To me it seems like the focus needs to be on finding that person/champion in order to get somewhere.
nouns-dao-–-activating-social-channelsIm not convinced trying to co-own/co-manage a single account is the best solution in the name of decentralization.
Its possible we should just kill those pseudo-official accounts and let market/competition be our outlet for a decentralized solution instead.
nouns-town-–-2025-edition-1Latsko did a banger job on Nounstown last year and im very keen to see how he can grow and develop it. Its currently one of the idea spaces where I feel its justified to spend above our day-to-day means and treat it as an investment in the project and community. The ROI comes mostly from intangibles (longterm coordination, ideas, understanding) that are easier to make happen IRL and i think nourishing those softer values are largely to thank for nouns not yet imploding on itself.
Random notes:
- Austin and HOPE seems like a great location
- Agree w mono re separation of summit and celebration and overall think this schedule looks good
Imo it would be good to pass a prop early or otherwise give latsko a soft greenlight re budget/direction to give him plenty of time and a bit of "security" to go all in on this.
To be fair, i dont think all of wylins actions has always been net good for Nouns but even when misfiring i believe the intent has come from a place of caring and deep drive to push nouns forward.
Wylin at his best is extremely impactful and worth celebrating.
As wylin also said, trying to fairly compensate someone for their time in Nouns in usd seems tough. We're all doing this as public servants, which is, imo, part of the point/appeal.
Much can be written about the pros/cons of distributing treasury nouns but atleast comp in Nouns tokens allows us to celebrate people and actions in a standardized way.
+1
> I'd rather give him an NFT -- paying him feels so corporate and gifting nouns is part of a long history. Sure some don't work out, but protecting the public resource doesn't make as much sense to me when there are 100s of nouns in the treasury and we aren't exactly burning through them
>
> +1
>
> > Wylin is indeed a community member worthy of our respect, and we believe he deserves retroactive rewards, but not in the form of Nouns NFTs. Instead, direct monetary compensation would be better.
> >
> > Gifting Nouns NFTs to someone is similar to an act of recognition, but what is the purpose of such recognition? Is it to inspire deeper identity recognition with NounsDAO in the recipient? However, when we search for 'Gift' on nouns.camp, the list includes people who have changed to Mfer avatars. When NFTs from the treasury are distributed but don't bring positive public impact, it's a waste of public resources.
> >
> > It's normal and good for proposers, the recognized individuals, and the sponsors to have friendly personal relationships. However, using public proposals to express this friendliness doesn't seem to be appropriate.
> >
> > Recently, Wylin's work has injected a healthy accountability culture into Nouns. We suggest compensating him for his due diligence and culture-building work on an hourly basis, potentially at a premium rate. On this point, we'd like to hear the community's and Wylin's thoughts.
[draft]-$23k-usd-for-nft-folder-evolution-—-yea-or-nay@0xE260...F0fE
yes of course, but my argument is that, to pass a nouns prop, you are better of being able to name 5 people who loves the app vs vague gesturing at 'this could be for anyone'
find a niche audience first, scale later
> > people who would be interested in this app (the typical ABC collector?)
>
> viewing and appreciating art is universal, collecting is niche.
>
> nft folder is for viewing only, there are no price tags, no collecting, no social noise.
>
> this way, it could evolve into a tool for everyone and reach a broader audience through app store search or app store featuring if it goes really well.
>
> +1
>
> > @0xE260...F0fE
> >
> > i come back to "who is the audience for this, and do/will they use it?"
> >
> > i suspect the people who would be interested in this app (the typical ABC collector?) does not cleanly overlap with people in Nouns and Nouns gov, and it seems to me theres a gap to bridge where you have to bring some qualitative proof that there is an existing or potential user base
> >
> > generally speaking, i think nouns is prone to fund software where a) the voters are users and can clearly see the need or b) the voters are not the typical user, but the benefit for another audience is very clear and well defined -- i suspect this project falls somewhere in between, where voters are not the typical user, and also dont know who its for
> >
> > > nft folder is a cc0 browser for hi-res fine art.
> > >
> > > "if we are to get people appreciating nfts as art we should go for it"
> > >
> > > i’m looking for more public feedback on this draft, and you should try the app too.
[draft]-$23k-usd-for-nft-folder-evolution-—-yea-or-nay@0xE260...F0fE
i come back to "who is the audience for this, and do/will they use it?"
i suspect the people who would be interested in this app (the typical ABC collector?) does not cleanly overlap with people in Nouns and Nouns gov, and it seems to me theres a gap to bridge where you have to bring some qualitative proof that there is an existing or potential user base
generally speaking, i think nouns is prone to fund software where a) the voters are users and can clearly see the need or b) the voters are not the typical user, but the benefit for another audience is very clear and well defined -- i suspect this project falls somewhere in between, where voters are not the typical user, and also dont know who its for
> nft folder is a cc0 browser for hi-res fine art.
>
> "if we are to get people appreciating nfts as art we should go for it"
>
> i’m looking for more public feedback on this draft, and you should try the app too.
Hey everyone, first $1k tournament coming up end of month!
When: Saturday, March 29th at 1:00pm EST
Format: MTG Arena Timeless B03, Swiss
Entry: Free
Prize: Total of $1k paid out to the top 8 players
Where: TheGathering server http://discord.gg/VtnghCnFWe
For sign up and more info, see: https://melee.gg/Tournament/View/266144