memoscan

0xc27b…1a06

All memos sent from and to 0xc27b…1a06.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#17,027,876·0x7be3d670…7887d2
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 263, which is 13 for, 14 against and 19 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Proposal 263 has presented us with a conundrum, making it difficult for us to render judgment. The Nouns Protector has just been established, and it may take approximately six months for clarifying our principles. We will briefly summarize the debates from our meeting: Nouns Esports has accomplished laudable outcomes, genuinely creating a stable organization to underpin esports teams' operations. This initial step is laden with myriad challenges that remain beyond our imagine. And, they have admirably maintained fiscal transparency throughout the process. Despite their successes, the community has voiced concerns about the long-term viability of Nouns Esports as a business. Should Nouns Esports evolve into an entity that perpetually depletes NounsDAO's cash flow, depending on ceaseless transfusions from NounsDAO for sustenance, this model would not be sustainable for NounsDAO in the long run. Furthermore, NounsDAO ought to concentrate on cultivating a more diverse and populous community. Some members posit that: " Nouns should channel resources into domains where it possesses an unambiguous competitive edge. Esports is not a realm where NounsDAO holds a competitive advantage. The Matthew effect is conspicuous within esports events, with elite teams monopolizing the lion's share of attention and securing funding that far exceeds $800,000. This sector is fiercely competitive. Nouns Esports cannot amass a competitive cache of funds, which means they cannot engage top-tier players nor establish a premier support infrastructure. Consequently, they will only gain exposure in regional championships and open tournaments (as evidenced by their historical performance), unable to penetrate truly valuable core events. What merit is there in allocating excessive funds to a sphere where NounsDAO can only assume a secondary role, particularly for an organization in its nascent stages, with a community treasury of a mere $50 million? " " More effective use of funds could be achieved by allocating 700 ETH to incubate 10 vibrant subculture DAOs across diverse fields, rather than expending a relatively negligible amount of funding to compete in conventional events. " Moreover, cautionary reminders have been raised about the pervasiveness of intimate personal relationships within NounsDAO: " Proposals prior to Proposal 200 have made considerable contributions to NounsDAO's present public image and clout. However, it has also engendered a nexus of relationships, with many decisions swayed by personal connections and predispositions. If NounsDAO is to pivot towards a more lucid, native, and 'truly growth' trajectory—championing a broader array of NounishDAOs—the community networks forged during the preceding strategic round may serve as impediments. As a result, more resources may be funneled towards politically correct but inefficacious marketing proposals, suppressing the potential for vibrant but peripheral creators to enter the Nouns ecosystem. " Notwithstanding any criticisms, Nouns Esports remains an outstanding member of NounishDAO. Additionally, esports represents an excellent conduit for Nouns to interface with the external world. We extend our hopes and blessings for Nouns Esports to persist and excel.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,949,381·0xaff8f762…17d32d
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 258, which is 0 for, 30 against and 0 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opinions opposing this proposal: 1. This is not community building. It's merely Satori and Bixbite doing business with Nouns, a business that is not advantageous for Nouns. 2. Satori and Bixbite's remarks in the Jungle channel, such as "Lil Nouns is cheap so I gave them a cheap" and "Lil Nouns is a toxic environment," further convince me that they do not understand the spirit of the community. They display arrogance toward the individual community members, treating DAOs and communities as cold numbers. This is the worst and most repulsive proposal and proposers I have encountered. 3. NounsDAO needs to operate in a community-driven manner, incubating more teams that understand and love the Nounish spirit. Today, NounsDAO has many teams that both love Nouns and can produce outstanding work. Yet, W3BSTOCK only seeks to be an outsourcing team, proposing a disadvantageous business deal. 4. I will continue to oppose such activities that use exposure as a gimmick. The traditional growth model that relies on increased exposure is effective because it has a unified company and growth system behind it. However, the conversion rate of each aspect of this growth method would plummet in NounsDAO, rendering it ineffective. NounsDAO's growth engine comes from numerous small teams that love Nouns and have comprehensive capabilities, as well as the establishment of specific social relationships. 5. Nouns may no longer need this type of exposure. Supporting views on the proposal: 1. A dedicated event organizer possesses sufficient professionalism. 2. They have participated in the Lilnouns community and observed the Nouns community. Although they mayn't to adapt, they have their own understanding of decentralized governance issues. Points of uncertainty include: 1. Bitcoin has never rejected anyone. Conflicts between native and external teams can be observed in various projects. On one hand, I have seen cases where bringing in professionals to solve problems for projects ended poorly. Native teams must build every module from scratch, and there are no shortcuts. On the other hand, the MakerDAO model shows that, despite severe conflicts between native and external teams, they are not mutually exclusive at the protocol level. Instead, they should be embraced by the protocol.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,949,339·0xb720b4c4…d1248c
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 257, which is 13 for, 19 against and 14 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opinions opposing this proposal: 1. The past three Nouns Fairs seemed to prioritize creating a lively atmosphere more than genuinely onboarding builders, and they did not showcase Nounish ideas and products born at hackathons (perhaps it's not apparent yet, as some builders might not have built products on the spot but developed ideas later). 2. Financial details are excessively indulgent: (1) the average cost of each fair is $38,438, while the bounty for rewarding builders is only $5,000, accounting for 13%, with the rest considered as marketing costs; there is too much budget allocation for marketing surrounding the Hackthon; (2) after three iterations, some aspects could be standardized and streamlined to avoid reinventing the wheel, such as reusing materials, resulting in instances of financial waste; (3) the costs for each event vary, but in planning, each is set the same; if the funds are not fully used, will they be returned to the treasury? 3. Data does not meet expected plans. The organizer's initial goal was 1,000 Twitter followers, but after the first event, the actual number was 580. After hosting three events, Nouns Amigos currently has 1,200 followers, with the growth rate gradually decreasing and an average of 300 new followers per event. 4. In Proposal 180, the team pledged to save funds, with excess funds to be returned to NounsDAO. However, this statement is removed in the current proposal, and after 36 hours of inquiring on Discord, there has still been no response. The team has made some changes in the crucial details of the proposal's financial aspect. It makes me feel that the team deliberately doesn't want to clarify the issue of financial waste, and I am concerned about whether the team might obtain undue benefits from the implementation. Supporting views on the proposal: 1. The issue is not whether the proposal should be implemented, but rather its cost-effectiveness. Raising Nouns' influence at Ethglobal IRL hackthons is something that should be done, with cost-effectiveness being a secondary concern. 2. The team can establish a professional Web3 event standard operating procedure (SOP). 3. The team has a track record of three successful events. The current Twitter followers are 1,000+. The average cost per follower is $50,000/1,000, or $50 per user. The data performance is at least average. Points of uncertainty include: 1. I have not been to ETHGlobal in Mexico, Bogota, or San Francisco, so I cannot understand the local atmosphere. Moreover, the most important aspect of offline marketing proposals is the specific implementation by the two members; we need to hear firsthand opinions from those who have interacted with them. 2. Although team have been able to execute events in the past, the team seems to have abandoned many original principles and become increasingly wasteful in the proposal, which makes me cautious. 3. NounsDAO proposals may exhibit a pattern of gradual governance attack. This starts with a few Small Grant deliveries, then bundles what should have been several small proposals into one large proposal, delivering low-quality results and pocketing the funds in between. This is an issue with the NounsDAO system. The NounsDAO system is imperfect, lacking supervision and feedback for long-term large proposals, as well as continuous incentives, potentially causing good actors to turn bad. Could Proposal 257 be an example of this gradual governance attack pattern? How can we solve this problem? 4. There are many conflicting thoughts regarding NounsDAO's financial scrutiny: 4.1 I believe that strict financial control will not yield good results, as financial systems need a mature community culture and relevant modules. Insisting on stringent requirements for any financial aspect in the absence of a solid foundation will do more harm than good to the system. 4.2 I think a 30% premium above the market rate is acceptable. Extra profit will make proposal deliveries more standardized and sustainable, reducing the sense of confusion and uncertainty for the implementing members on the cutting edge. 4.3 I can also understand the strict financial stance is resonable; if there is a 70% reduction in financial advocacy, then a 30% reduction in the financial budget may also be acceptable to the community. We should stick to strict financial discipline.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,323·0xc007df13…cd819c
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 256, which is 0 for, 19 against and 2 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opposing views on the proposal: 1. I do not approve of its model. Spending $150,000 to create a rigid politically correct story for Nouns is a very bad sign. This proposal follows the traditional brand operation mindset of funding special groups and shaping their own brand image. Now NounsDAO funds an inspirational star who knows nothing about Nouns and has done nothing for Nouns, implanting a positive and optimistic brand spirit in everyone, which is an extremely rigid and inflexible brand strategy that does not fit with Nouns. Noun's brand is a completely different model from previous brands; it is a headless brand where people feel the project's branding characteristics from community members' experiences. For the branding of Nouns, vivid stories or creatively concise memes should be used to enhance culture and build community consensus rather than funding a celebrity who has no understanding of Nouns. I strongly oppose the 256 proposal, which uses a solution that is fundamentally incompatible with both our thinking and operational methods to shape the Nouns brand. 2. The requirement for $150,000 in funding is too high.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,318·0xd5b88dfd…2e6166
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 255, which is 1 for, 17 against and 6 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opposing views on the proposal: 1. The community wallet product originated from a private social club similar to FWB, which is more suitable for closed community scenarios and not applicable to open Nouns. However, it may be adopted by subDAOs of Nouns. 2. Why should Nouns pay 120 ETH for an integrated service? The proposal for NounsWallet is different from Prop House and House Of Nouns' building products from scratch for Nouns. The product was not adopted in FWB, and now they are applying for funding in Nouns to do integration, which is extremely unreasonable. Nouns provides both users and funds to integrate a product service. 3. There is insufficient confidence in timely delivery of the product. This is PoolSuite team's first proposal at Noun. In the past, the team has delayed delivery of products such as https://grandleisure.org/. Supporting views on the proposal: 1. The proposer of Proposal 255, PoolSuite, is a talented team with excellent aesthetics in their FM magazine products etc., even if there have been delays in delivery we are willing to wait for them to produce results.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,302·0x479c82af…f20df0
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 254, which is 10 for, 4 against and 5 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opposing views on the proposal: 1. The proposal emphasizes business model innovation, but using a points program to maintain user loyalty without any community ownership does not reflect innovative business models. Existing Web3 consumer explorations have shown that even if the community has a little bit of ownership, the effect will be very different. 2. The biggest concern is sustainability. Some long-standing old stores root themselves in the community and condense rich social relationships. However, operators in this proposal rely more on Nouns12 to maintain it. If people who have been in restaurants for a long time do not see or understand information about Nouns belonging to the community, then the relationship between such restaurants and Nouns is very fragile over time. In other words, if operators of the Nouns brand do not love their community, its actual effect on Nouns' culture and brand will be minimal. 3. I asked about restaurant ownership issues with Nouns12, and they replied that there was no connection between restaurant ownership and Nouns; it only had promotional effects on branding. From this perspective, it's not cost-effective. 4. We are unfamiliar with Australia's commercial environment and concerned about instability in offline space operations - such as local restaurant closure rates or whether it's possible to spend $200k decorating an establishment only for it to become unprofitable after one year. Supporting views on the proposal: 1. I've always had special feelings towards physical spaces offline. Buildings are not just functional venues but also condensed things within meaning worlds that remain unchanged. Building a square in a community where social interactions occur frequently - like children playing around or lovers being intimate - remains constant while producing many interesting stories above them; layered cultures emerge from these buildings over time.Building architecture is unique because promoting culture is difficult yet when an offline entity exists long enough; interesting stories continue emerging from them creating multi-layered cultures. 2. Despite having several problems highlighted by opposing views regarding short-term benefits versus costs involved with this proposal, it's worth exploring and seeking Co-Create's consultation and assistance. This proposal takes an important step in Nouns' exploration of Web3+ consumption + offline community building, even if the concept may not be perfect.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,290·0x566436c6…2720c9
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 253, which is 6 for, 10 against and 11 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opinions opposing this proposal: 1. The theme of Hack Week is not clear, and the proposal is a bit rough. 2. Time. The poster indicates that it will be held from 3.27-4.2, which is very urgent. 70% of the effect of Hack Week comes from early preparation and BD, especially as an online hackathon, the promotion and BD time in the early stage needs to be longer. 3. 99 ETH expenditure is too high. It's unreasonable to hastily organize a Nouns ecosystem Hack Week for about $200,000. Supporting views on the proposal: 1. A replicable growth model has been proven in the Nouns ecosystem. From Open Round and private voting research rounds, this is the best Nouns growth model. And every launch will attract enough attention and increase community cohesion. This proposal belongs to repeating an already successful model to promote ecological growth for Nouns with no logical problems. 2. The difference in this proposal is that Hack Week will involve more operational work than Prop House rounds without promotion or operation; this replicable model can actually be optimized by Proposal 253 for mature growth within Nouns' ecosystem. 3. Behind Proposal 253 are teams such as Nouns.build, Nouns Square, Grant Protocol etc., who together form a golden team among all proposals related to nouns - they are trustworthy due to their understanding of noun spirits as well as professionalism and execution capabilities. 4. On another note: I am concerned that overly professional requirements for proposals may stifle community atmosphere. Many proposers have no problem with logic or implementation but may get bogged down in how professional their proposals should be instead of focusing on what's best for nouns.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,283·0xd3796293…3691e6
OImagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 251, which is 0 for, 18 against and 4 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed): Opinions opposing this proposal: 1. The finances for marketing proposals should be tightened. It is recommended that all marketing proposals go through the Small Grant channel. If they want to go through the on-chain major proposal channel, they must prove that there can be revenue and feedback to the treasury. The key indicator for evaluating a marketing proposal is whether or not it has a meme or story. The idea behind this proposal is obvious and lacks any story or meme. 2. Based on my current experience, I have observed that Nouns attract new community members and grow primarily through outstanding community products, the hard work of dedicated teams, the tireless promotion of Nouns by holders, and prop house rounds that demonstrate Noun's vigorous vitality of the community. However, Proposal 251 has created a Consumerism landscape that is not conducive to marketing and brand building within the community.Personally, I have no interest in marketing without incorporating memes or stories. Proposal 251 will not capture the recognition of both fashion circles and Crypto-Native partners, and instead make them feel like there is another naive buyer paying for trendy things while satisfying some people's self-perceived pleasure in effective marketing. 3. Data shows that Proposal 197 had poor execution results after implementation with only one thousand views on Twitter review proposals with sixteen retweets compared to an investment of $120k resulting in low ROI. Opinions supporting this proposal: 1. 3D printed fashion looks good and novel. 2. Danit Peleg (the proposer) has successfully delivered three rounds of proposals in the past. She is dedicated and can enhance the Nouns community. As an Israeli fashion designer, she became famous as the first designer to create 3D-printed clothing.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,854,211·0xe572700f…02be5e
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 241, which is 5 for, 18 against and 0 abstain, we choose to vote against. The proposal's opinion is clear, and we do not recommend taking Rage Quit immediately. It's not just an issue with the content of the proposal itself, but also the caution regarding the level of the proposal. Our opposing viewpoints: 1. Refuse to change the constitutional-level rules of the DAO without evidence that Rage Quit is effective (MolochDAO rarely uses Rage Quit) or sufficient community debate. Proposals of this level require lengthy debate, repeated proposals and opposition, and then approval. Changing the underlying rules lightly is irresponsible to the consensus. It is normal for a system to have human flaws at every level. However, a casual attitude towards underlying rules could destroy the Nouns system, a stable system is better than no system. 2. NounsDAO already has a secondary market exit method. Rage Quit is a term that appears powerful on the surface, but in essence, it is a bad price market-making way. It does not have the game-theoretical effect it promises. 3. The importance behind Rage Quit is not angry, but forking. The execution of this proposal did not enhance the system or generate more viable branches, but resulted in a loss of consensus, which is negative on the margin. Instead, leaving feedback for continuous improvement of the system can turn it into a way to enhance the system. The efficiency of Nouns proposal supervision has also been improving and will continue to progress. 4. The proposal implies that everyone is angry, which is a language game. The fact is that most users have a mixed feeling of disappointment and hope. Any one-sided release of hope or anger will damage a system. 5. Earlier proposal 192 had a more comprehensive rage quit design called theDAO Split mechanism/design. The proposer, Verbs team, pointed out that although it is still under discussion with legal counsel, they believe it is the best solution for Nouns. They are now soliciting community opinions and think it is very urgent to implement it as soon as possible. The supporting viewpoints for this proposal are very simple: 1. Promote the equal vision of Nouns: Each Nouns subdao represents Nouns, and NounsDAO is just one branch. This is a more attractive future, a dynamic and ongoing future.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,797,720·0xed645497…b4c324
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 241, which is 13 for, 19 against and 13 abstain, we choose to vote abstain. There's a lot of controversy surrounding this proposal, with only a four-vote difference between those against and those for/abstaining. Supporting Points: 1. Atrium has proven their production capability. With a previous proposal, they delivered a remarkable 2-minute video with impressive speed and content, standing out from previous video proposals with poor delivery in NounsDAO. 2. Atrium's video is relatively cost-effective compared to other high-quality videos. Opposing Points: 1. For the same cost, ten meme shorts could have better reach. Nouns should focus on storytelling and creating memes instead of high-quality. 2. Proposal 195 video fails to demonstrate the team's storytelling ability. There are no memes or compelling stories, and there is no motivation for secondary creation and propagation. The video has only received 86 shares, 166 likes, and 40,000 views. Moreover, the TikTok link on Zora is invalid. The video appears soulless with exquisite 3D models but a flat and bland story. 3. Nouns Town in Proposal 195 has no Nouns elements. Upon inspection, the town is similar to small towns in any animated film, as if it were a 2-minute video assembled from past materials.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,797,419·0xc7c6d321…cfb376
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 241, which is 19 for, 13 against and 12 abstain, we choose to vote abstain. We support Proposal 244. 1. The Lilnouns community has adopted it, with over 160 ideas collected and turned into proposals through a proven process. 2. PropLot's team is truly community-driven, able to identify and fulfill needs on the fringes of the community. They are a team with a Crypto-Native soul, and we believe in their future! 3. This is an interesting governance experiment. PropLot will become Nounish's wish pool, and if it becomes a reality, it would be too wonderful! Both Nouners could enjoy a more complete governance cycle and a more active ecosystem. However, there are many concerns. The reason for these concerns is that 1. PropLot's effectiveness in NounsDAO is in doubt. PropLot performs well in the Lilnouns community due to its member size and its integration into the lilnouns website. But PropLot and NounsDAO are very different. NounsDAO is a network with only 341 holders (NounsDAO is not a community), while Lilnouns has a community of 2338 active members who generate many interesting stories on Discord. In addition, if PropLot is not integrated into the NounsDAO website or the processes of Prop House or House Of Nouns, then there will be little interaction with holders and users. Although Nouns.Center has implemented this feature, its entry point is too deep, and no one uses it. These are the reasons why we do not believe PropLot will be successfully adopted in NounsDAO. 2. There are also many alternative products available. PropLot's idea is simple and can easily be implemented by HouseOfNouns (in their proposal) or other products such as nouns.build and nounsagora. Overall, we are willing to believe in them and take this adventure together!
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,790,335·0x297ec9de…bf62dd
FImagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 241, which is 33 for, 8 against and 15 abstain, we choose to vote abstain. The House Of Nouns proposal is one that is difficult to find flaws in. We have two concerns: 1. NounsDAO has no ownership of the product that the proposal promises. Will the ownership of the product, as promised in the proposal, be allocated to NounsDAO? If there is no correlation, then the funds requested in the proposal are essentially for the team to develop a product that belongs solely to themselves using NounsDAO's funds. This is a proposal that harms Nouns and benefits the team. 2. Complexity of features. The product promises to implement a complete governance lifecycle, including collecting ideas, early-stage discussions, on-chain decisions, etc. This means that the functional requirements are complex, and once the complexity is identified, even the best product manager will find it difficult to handle. First concern is not an issue with the 242 proposal, but rather with the immaturity of the NounsDAO system itself. Overall, we like the House Of Nouns product and team for the following reasons: 1. We are frequent users of House Of Nouns. It is simple and has redesigned the user interaction logic to focus on proposals, rather than channels, communities, or governance participants. This is a new type of product, and it has been well received by users (we can attest to that). 2. House Of Nouns is the first governance tool to define a complete governance process, implying a standard for proposal governance. It is beneficial not only for NounsDAO but also for the Nounish and Crypto industry, as it promotes scientific and standardized governance. 3. House Of Nouns has an excellent product team behind it. They understand the Nouns spirit and have developed a new Nouns model product called thatsgnarly.ly. Behind House Of Nouns and ThatsGnarly's products, one can see a professional and continuous product development system, which is invaluable.
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,770,635·0x8c1e66c7…d477c6
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule. According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 241, which is 5 for, 24 against and 15 abstain, we choose to vote against. We abstained in the last proposal, because we appreciated DigitalOil’s exploration of dynamic range for community fundraising tools. The reason for the change in the outcome of the two rounds of proposals is that the new proposal became more and more difficult to understand, especially the second part. We support the exploration of dynamic funding. The content of the second part belongs to a direction that is correct, but proposes an overly complicated experimental scheme. The new proposal itself did not improve, and requires a philosophical dialectical understanding to enter the context of the proposal, which is a good idea, but not a product that people need. Although DigitalOil absorbed everyone’s opinions and made improvements. The financial and team parts of the proposal still did not improve, making the evaluation more difficult. We suggest implementing the first part of the product and applying for a “Small Grant”. Although we vote against, we recognize DigitalOil’s product philosophy, and the mechanization of dynamic financial governance is a very important direction. Nouns’ funding support means are limited (on-chain proposal, Small Round, Prop House), and it is difficult to fund governance thinkers and developers like DigitalOil. When the product is just an early personal idea, and has not reached the stage of being needed by the community, it should not use On-chain Proposal. Maybe we can open a round of “dynamic funding” Prop House to explore this path?
0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,743,278·0xbb3aa17c…503e94
Our principle is to only vote against currently :) The rule is that for each proposal we will conduct an "Squad Vote".When the "against" votes are greater than the "for" votes + "abstain" votes, we will choose to vote against on-chain; otherwise we will abstain. "Squad Vote" result: Approval:Opposition:Abstention = 16:5:3. The proposal was approved by all of us to provide an open database for the Nounish ecosystem. NounsDAO will benefit greatly from it. It will enhance the overall daotool development of the Nounish ecosystem. We support the team in exploring the path of data composability for Nounish. Infrastructure exploration is highly risky and uncertain. It is harder than imagined. But the team has a good track record to prove that they have a deep understanding and patience for it. Our opposition mainly comes from: 1. Is it too early to do it now? Nounish Dataverse may be like Web3 Social projects, unable to find Builders to develop products/tools that everyone needs, infrastructure but running applications that no one uses on top. There is no information indicating that applications currently in demand (Prop House, Nouns Agora, House of Nouns, Nouns.Build, Dune Dashboard..) would consider using Ceramic as their data backend. It is much more difficult for applications to be demanded than to do underlying infrastructure. Holding a Prop House Round as mentioned in the proposal does not solve this problem. 2. The proposal delivers too much content The Nounish Dataverse proposal promises a decentralized database based on Ceramic, developer documentation, ID system integration application… A single proposal combines too many things to do. We recognize 30% of what’s in the proposal but 70% is over-committed.