memoscan

0xe10a…2b1e

All memos sent from and to 0xe10a…2b1e.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,588,297·0xc0afb5dc…cc7c95
Centralization Risk: Relying on Chainalysis centralizes power, risking manipulation or failures that could disrupt auctions. Auction Integrity: According to auditors feedback, oracle issues could freeze auctions or allow exploits, threatening "One Noun, One Day, Forever." Regulatory Uncertainty: OFAC’s unclear blockchain stance ties our revenue to unpredictable risks. This proposal compromises decentralization, stability, and the DAO’s core principles. Reject it.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,492,905·0x014e6bc3…b31752
sexual-pleasure-detection-device Could the proposer share examples of your academic contributions or research work in this field? Highlighting your most-cited publications or key achievements during your PhD would provide valuable context for the community to evaluate your expertise.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,430,831·0x1c66ee01…8f21e8
+1 > The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop. > > As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection) > > Against +1 > agree mostly with all the opinions shared here so far.. some of the thoughts in the back of my mind; > > - unsure about allowing exit in general. There is a secondary market for that. > > - not sure we should keep the nouns after exit, vs burn. > > - how does a stream / canceling a stream like this work tax-wise for nouns / auction winner if we ever reach non-profit status? > > +1 > > > Supportive of a stream that is triggered if someone wins an auction at a level set by the Dao, many multiples above current win rate. Allowing these magic million donors a off-ramp while not grid locking the Dao in slow demand environment. > > +1 > > > In favor of complying with DUNA, not in favor of minority protection via exit. > > > > +1 > > > > > The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop. > > > > > > As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection) > > > > > > Against > > > > +1 > > > > > The exit mechanic already functions through secondary sales, which are occurring almost daily. > > > > > > The fork threshold is currently at 100%. Ragequit was undeniably a mistake and can no longer happen. Any external attacks can be vetoed. So what are we doing here? > > > > > > Ideas like this feel like a significant waste of time and only introduce new attack vectors that this proposal fails to address. > > > > +1 > > > > > Ive never been a strong proponent of this design (on the contrary been strongly against it in the past) but all-in-all i think this is a fine feature and net-positive compared to having no exit/refund mech. > > > > > > Thanks david/elad for all the hard work on this! > > +1 > > > The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop. > > > > As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection) > > > > Against > > +1 > > > This doesn't seem to protect any minorities. Is this necessary for establishing the DUNA?
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,322,073·0x5c45abb2…476bd3
+1 > I’m fully in support of continuing the Nouns Esports journey. As a more 'behind the scenes-work' member of the esports community I've seen many orgs come and go, I initially thought Nouns Esports was just another organization entering the space with cryptobacked partnerships and startup promotion intentions. When I jumped in to learn more I couldn’t have been more wrong. My curiosity about what Nouns Esports really had to offer led me to meet Ohan, Peter, and Sasquatch. They showed me that they really do have genuine passion and love for these games and their communities. > Esports communities can super vary across different games, but Nouns Esports has found meaningful ways to engage with and support those in spaces the spaces they've moved into. I've totally seen them uplift and empower the communities they’ve joined, like straight up first hand for real for real. I also was able to contribute to and become more involved with Nouns too! In 2024 I worked with Nouns Esports on photo, video, and media projects, and even won one of the Nouns Rounds! Nouns Rounds have been some of the most fun things around in the Smash community. > What makes keeping Nouns Esports alive so important is how much they’ve done for a community in the short time they've been around. Their team of people with passion, technical expertise and genuine care have brought invaluable support and positivity to the players and the communities around them. This dedication is why I think its super duper important to continue the this journey and I'm so excited for whats in store for 2025! +1 > We commend the team and players for the inroads they've made thus far, but we are not sold. > > The amount of money this DAO has invested into the Esports scene to date is indeed a hard pill to swallow, and it's clear this approach is not a sustainable model for the DAO in its current state. When staff publicly say, "when the money is gone the ⌐◨-◨ will go," we are not filled with confidence for the future. > > Wages at 55% of a budget this large feels off. +1 > I can't see how this will bring the visibility at scale (apart from the Smash Bros one, oc) and the price is crazy high for what's being delivered.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,322,066·0x0d0128e4…732f4f
+1 > super bullish on flows > > Nouns Flows Funds to Subcultures > > all of the fundamentals are in place. would encourage the team to spend the period researching > > need to activate Nouners or give them options to delegate their ability to allocate capital through Flows. > > improve the ux/ui for Nouners & curators. the next wave and scale up in flows should come from Nouners patroning positive impact in their favorite subcultures
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,280,891·0x0c8ff1ab…ef597f
@0xA868...9E63 I think you are right, I think it's wise to just cancel the prop and put something up online then do this later. Thank you! > @0xE10a...2b1E > > You can earn eth towards your client ID without it being approved -- then when you have a functional product you can come back and have it approved in order to claim rewards. > > > @0xA868...9E63 > > > > It doesn't hurt to give me a try ⌐◨-◨ > > > > > > > > > > > I feel inclined to vote against this since: > > > - The author is anon and relatively unknown to the nouns community > > > - There is nothing to see on the website > > > > > > I think either of these points need to be amended for me to vote yes; ie, its fine to be anon as long as there is a product to see/use, and its fine to not have a product ready as long as the author is a known and trusted member of the community. > > > > > > As it stands, i will vote against this else the approval process lose its meaning to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,279,976·0xa205222b…7559b0
@0xA868...9E63 It doesn't hurt to give me a try ⌐◨-◨ > > > I feel inclined to vote against this since: > - The author is anon and relatively unknown to the nouns community > - There is nothing to see on the website > > I think either of these points need to be amended for me to vote yes; ie, its fine to be anon as long as there is a product to see/use, and its fine to not have a product ready as long as the author is a known and trusted member of the community. > > As it stands, i will vote against this else the approval process lose its meaning to me. >
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,278,171·0xbe3e2021…26314e
# Approve Client ID 18 - ANouns ### Summary This proposal seeks to approve **Client ID 18: ANouns** for participation in the Nouns Client Incentives program. --- #### About ANouns - **Website**: [https://anouns.eth.limo](https://anouns.eth.limo) - **Description**: ANouns is a decentralized frontend for the Nouns ecosystem, built using the EIP-1577 standard (ENS + IPFS). The client supports core functionalities, including: - **Auctions**: Real-time participation in Nouns auctions. - **Governance**: Voting, proposal creation, and interaction with Nouns DAO. - **Open Source Commitment**: ANouns will be fully open-sourced on **GitHub** under the **GPLv3 license**, enabling transparency and community contributions. - **Status**: The website is under development and will be available later. Stay tuned for updates! --- #### Request I request the approval of **Client ID 18** to enable ANouns to finalize its development and provide a decentralized, open-source interface for the Nouns ecosystem. --- Thank you! ⌐◨-◨
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,278,113·0xeb61db34…e6f3de
approve-client-id-18---anouns@0xC7CC...7d87 LOL, not gonna asking for any money for this. **I put this onchain.** If a client can’t survive on the incentive program, it doesn’t belong in the market. And if all clients are struggling, we should fix the incentive program itself—not have devs running to the DAO with a begging face. > > > Looking forward to the 1 million 2025 runway budget 🔥 >
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,277,918·0x0445e0dc…77b1cd
# Approve Client ID 18 - ANouns ### Summary This proposal seeks to approve **Client ID 18: ANouns** for participation in the Nouns Client Incentives program. --- #### About ANouns - **Website**: [https://anouns.eth.limo](https://anouns.eth.limo) - **Description**: ANouns is a decentralized frontend for the Nouns ecosystem, built using the EIP-1577 standard (ENS + IPFS). The client supports core functionalities, including: - **Auctions**: Real-time participation in Nouns auctions. - **Governance**: Voting, proposal creation, and interaction with Nouns DAO. - **Open Source Commitment**: ANouns will be fully open-sourced on **GitHub** under the **GPLv3 license**, enabling transparency and community contributions. - **Status**: The website is under development and will be available later. Stay tuned for updates! --- #### Request I request the approval of **Client ID 18** to enable ANouns to finalize its development and provide a decentralized, open-source interface for the Nouns ecosystem. --- Thank you! ⌐◨-◨ approve-client-id-18---anouns
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,262,544·0xe70387ab…c0b2b4
@0xc6a3...96E4 Thank you for the clarification. As an external observer, I wasn’t fully aware of Nouncil’s internal decisions on proportional voting. I appreciate you providing this context—it helps clear up the misunderstanding. Looking forward to seeing how these discussions evolve. Thanks! > @0xE10a...2b1E > > Nouncil voted to cast its votes proportionally back in February. to say it’s against Nouncil’s purpose and goals is counter to its own internal governance > > fair enough on the added risks of deposit vaults, however it’s a solution Verbs have considered for the Core Protocol of Nouns as explained in the first Mirror link > > > @0xc6a3...96E4 > > > > Thank you for your response. While I appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I believe it undermines the fundamental role of Nouncil as a unified governance body. > > > > 1. **Nouncil’s Core Purpose is Unified Governance**: > > Nouncil was created to act as a cohesive entity, representing delegated Nouns with a unified voice. This collective governance structure ensures that Nouncil can make clear, decisive contributions to Nouns DAO governance. Fragmenting voting power through liquid voting fundamentally erodes this collective purpose and weakens Nouncil’s ability to operate effectively. > > > > 2. **Liquid Voting is Unnecessary and Counterproductive**: > > The introduction of liquid voting is at odds with Nouncil’s goals. It shifts focus from collective decision-making to individualized voting, diluting Nouncil’s influence and creating unnecessary complexity. > > > > 3. **Deposit Vaults Add Unnecessary Risks**: > > Forcing Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into vaults undermines trust and introduces avoidable security risks. Nouncil’s current delegation mechanisms already allow ownership and voting rights to remain separate without these trade-offs. > > > > A simpler and more effective solution, such as a unified delegation contract, would preserve Nouncil’s role as a unified governance body while avoiding fragmentation and unnecessary risks. Nouncil’s collective strength lies in its ability to represent the community as one voice, and this principle should remain at the heart of any onchain Nouncil design. > > > > Thank you for considering this feedback. > > > > > @0xE10a...2b1E > > > > > > appreciate the feedback > > > > > > the core Nouns protocol does not allow for liquid, (ie proportionate or weighted-majority,) voting in delegation. these articles from the Verbs protocol team can explain it better than I can. > > > > > > https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/gnTdSqqiZC7OmqL8Dix-hEek5Sim1abC1BsZNm9_h-s > > > > > > https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/TP917T6vm6gXuVAxbQ34ZCn7dNiHabu3UW-ninwalVc > > > > > > unless and until the core protocol is changed to allow for NFT based voting, rather than wallet-based voting, deposit-vaults are, as far as we are aware, the only strategy to allow a voting body to split it's votes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although this proposal has already been canceled, I’d like to share my thoughts on the design. > > > > > > > > This protocol introduces a problematic design choice: requiring Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into third-party-designed vaults. This fundamentally conflicts with the preferences of most Nouns holders. The current delegation mechanism works well by separating NFT ownership and voting rights without requiring holders to relinquish control of their assets. In contrast, this proposed protocol forces holders to give up ownership, a decision that could carry unacceptable risks. If issues arise, the developers would be unable to mitigate the potential fallout. > > > > > > > > A key concern is that the $⌐◧-◧ contract, which seems to inspire this protocol, has not yet been deployed or tested under real-world conditions. Without sufficient testing and risk evaluation, adopting such a system for governance introduces unnecessary vulnerabilities. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, if Nouncil adopts this design, I believe it would significantly reduce the willingness of delegators to assign their voting rights to Nouncil. Trust is essential in delegation, and this proposal undermines that trust by adding unnecessary risk and complexity. > > > > > > > > That said, I recognize the effort behind this proposal and the intention to innovate. I hope future designs will better align with the community's expectations by preserving NFT ownership while enabling secure and flexible governance. A more thoughtful approach could retain the strengths of the current delegation system while addressing any gaps with minimal risk. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,262,400·0xc21ce652…cb79d1
@0xc6a3...96E4 Thank you for your response. While I appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I believe it undermines the fundamental role of Nouncil as a unified governance body. 1. **Nouncil’s Core Purpose is Unified Governance**: Nouncil was created to act as a cohesive entity, representing delegated Nouns with a unified voice. This collective governance structure ensures that Nouncil can make clear, decisive contributions to Nouns DAO governance. Fragmenting voting power through liquid voting fundamentally erodes this collective purpose and weakens Nouncil’s ability to operate effectively. 2. **Liquid Voting is Unnecessary and Counterproductive**: The introduction of liquid voting is at odds with Nouncil’s goals. It shifts focus from collective decision-making to individualized voting, diluting Nouncil’s influence and creating unnecessary complexity. 3. **Deposit Vaults Add Unnecessary Risks**: Forcing Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into vaults undermines trust and introduces avoidable security risks. Nouncil’s current delegation mechanisms already allow ownership and voting rights to remain separate without these trade-offs. A simpler and more effective solution, such as a unified delegation contract, would preserve Nouncil’s role as a unified governance body while avoiding fragmentation and unnecessary risks. Nouncil’s collective strength lies in its ability to represent the community as one voice, and this principle should remain at the heart of any onchain Nouncil design. Thank you for considering this feedback. > @0xE10a...2b1E > > appreciate the feedback > > the core Nouns protocol does not allow for liquid, (ie proportionate or weighted-majority,) voting in delegation. these articles from the Verbs protocol team can explain it better than I can. > > https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/gnTdSqqiZC7OmqL8Dix-hEek5Sim1abC1BsZNm9_h-s > > https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/TP917T6vm6gXuVAxbQ34ZCn7dNiHabu3UW-ninwalVc > > unless and until the core protocol is changed to allow for NFT based voting, rather than wallet-based voting, deposit-vaults are, as far as we are aware, the only strategy to allow a voting body to split it's votes > > > > > > > Although this proposal has already been canceled, I’d like to share my thoughts on the design. > > > > This protocol introduces a problematic design choice: requiring Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into third-party-designed vaults. This fundamentally conflicts with the preferences of most Nouns holders. The current delegation mechanism works well by separating NFT ownership and voting rights without requiring holders to relinquish control of their assets. In contrast, this proposed protocol forces holders to give up ownership, a decision that could carry unacceptable risks. If issues arise, the developers would be unable to mitigate the potential fallout. > > > > A key concern is that the $⌐◧-◧ contract, which seems to inspire this protocol, has not yet been deployed or tested under real-world conditions. Without sufficient testing and risk evaluation, adopting such a system for governance introduces unnecessary vulnerabilities. > > > > Furthermore, if Nouncil adopts this design, I believe it would significantly reduce the willingness of delegators to assign their voting rights to Nouncil. Trust is essential in delegation, and this proposal undermines that trust by adding unnecessary risk and complexity. > > > > That said, I recognize the effort behind this proposal and the intention to innovate. I hope future designs will better align with the community's expectations by preserving NFT ownership while enabling secure and flexible governance. A more thoughtful approach could retain the strengths of the current delegation system while addressing any gaps with minimal risk. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > >
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,261,708·0x80087d61…93d0a4
Although this proposal has already been canceled, I’d like to share my thoughts on the design. This protocol introduces a problematic design choice: requiring Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into third-party-designed vaults. This fundamentally conflicts with the preferences of most Nouns holders. The current delegation mechanism works well by separating NFT ownership and voting rights without requiring holders to relinquish control of their assets. In contrast, this proposed protocol forces holders to give up ownership, a decision that could carry unacceptable risks. If issues arise, the developers would be unable to mitigate the potential fallout. A key concern is that the $⌐◧-◧ contract, which seems to inspire this protocol, has not yet been deployed or tested under real-world conditions. Without sufficient testing and risk evaluation, adopting such a system for governance introduces unnecessary vulnerabilities. Furthermore, if Nouncil adopts this design, I believe it would significantly reduce the willingness of delegators to assign their voting rights to Nouncil. Trust is essential in delegation, and this proposal undermines that trust by adding unnecessary risk and complexity. That said, I recognize the effort behind this proposal and the intention to innovate. I hope future designs will better align with the community's expectations by preserving NFT ownership while enabling secure and flexible governance. A more thoughtful approach could retain the strengths of the current delegation system while addressing any gaps with minimal risk. Thank you.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,250,058·0xa0162eea…6f3b02
Agreed +1 > https://youtu.be/3JjblckvKZI?si=fhXExwG4Rq5E93FG What’s going to be the difference? Are we just producing a similar product with a new crew producing? No hate but 119 views don't signal the demand for a second coming
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,137,839·0x14ff25ad…248727
Shouldn't this proposal be initiated by the Nouncil address? BTW, I hope someone can explain how Nouncil works, as the discussion process for proposals within Nouncil seems somewhat mysterious. I tried joining Nouncil's Discord, but it appears that I can't see discussions of past proposals. A more open proposal discussion process would be helpful for the community. If people are considering delegating their Nouns to Nouncil, it would be more convincing if people could see historical governance reports from Nouncil in advance.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,120,490·0xfdeb6a21…307c3c
I don't get it here. Since Lil Nouns has 350+ ETH in the treasury. Why not Lil Nouns/Lintcouncil just buy some Nouns then start this experiment? Or just asking community people to delegate votes to them is enough to start the experiment. This is not a no vote, just asking.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,112,897·0x1f250d26…5c6a66
More open sourced clients will always be great. On the license part, personally I prefer GPL v3, so people reuse your work will have to open source it. But this is your choice. Love more open source projects coming.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,005,237·0xab019874…3ba047
For the long-term interests and development of the DAO, the Nouns Foundation should be removed, not empowered. Some DAO members are using seemingly politically correct issues to tear apart the entire community and centralize power using the foundation, a complete betrayal of the original value proposition of NounsDAO by DUNA. If DUNA passes, we will permanently lose a global, permissionless DAO, and instead become an increasingly centralized traditional foundation. We are not moving towards compliance, but towards dictatorship. DAO is Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Let’s fight for decentralization and fight for our freedom.
0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#20,819,090·0x98b906fe…3ee09d
It seems like the future of our global DAO is being influenced by US-based members under the guise of politically correct reasoning. While I understand the concerns, it doesn't feel right that a project meant to serve a global community should compromise for a specific region. If we can't execute proposals in a permissionless manner, it calls into question the very purpose of the DAO. Strongly against DUNA.