Japan has already witnessed the emergence of two outstanding organizations, pNouns and NOUNS BASE .
However, there's a concerning sign when browsing "Nouns Japan House":
The NFTs of Nouns Japan House are highly centralized. This leads to an undesirable trend: a lack of transparency, where stakeholders rather than creators tend to come out on top.
In rounds 1-7, this phenomenon wasn't that pronounced, and occasionally, one could spot some talented creators.
However, in rounds 8-10, the past three winners were all from the same organization, accumulating the votes and securing the funds.
Two characteristics are observed in Nouns Japan House:
1. Some commendable creators have already left the community; their Twitter accounts haven't mentioned 'nounsdao' in the past six months.
2. The circle is tightening, with grants mostly going to those inside.
This is merely a well-intentioned reminder. For this prop, we abstain from voting.
Japan has already witnessed the emergence of two outstanding organizations, pNouns and NOUNS BASE .
However, there's a concerning sign when browsing "Nouns Japan House":
The NFTs of Nouns Japan House are highly centralized. This leads to an undesirable trend: a lack of transparency, where stakeholders rather than creators tend to come out on top.
In rounds 1-7, this phenomenon wasn't that pronounced, and occasionally, one could spot some talented creators.
However, in rounds 8-10, the past three winners were all from the same organization, accumulating the votes and securing the funds.
Two characteristics are observed in Nouns Japan House:
1. Some commendable creators have already left the community; their Twitter accounts haven't mentioned 'nounsdao' in the past six months.
2. The circle is tightening, with grants mostly going to those inside.
This is merely a well-intentioned reminder. For this prop, we abstain from voting.
The financial input for this proposal is not economical.
It's worth noting that the quality of the game sample is good, and the gameplay seems mature. However, it's unfortunate that the Nouns community is in a down economic cycle, and the proposal is not in sync with the political mood cycle of the Nouns community.
The financial input for this proposal is not economical.
It's worth noting that the quality of the game sample is good, and the gameplay seems mature. However, it's unfortunate that the Nouns community is in a down economic cycle, and the proposal is not in sync with the political mood cycle of the Nouns community.
I find it imperative to bring attention to a structural shift within the Nouns community’s holder group. The spotlight is predominantly on Voters or Arbitrageurs, while they constitute an active minority. The silent majority of Crypto-Native individuals are fading away.
In my observation, the invaluable asset behind Nouns is the influence network of its Crypto-Native community. Despite their customary silence in public discourse, this majority has immensely contributed to the implicit brand and creativity of Nouns, standing as core contributors to the treasury auction. Often, they advocate for Nouns in various online and offline settings. My personal journey to joining the Nouns community is a testament to the impact of this group.
Nonetheless, the incentive flaws in the forking phenomenon are driving away many Crypto-Native players . The ripple of their exit is a concerning undercurrent for the dynamism and growth of Nouns.
I find it imperative to bring attention to a structural shift within the Nouns community’s holder group. The spotlight is predominantly on Voters or Arbitrageurs, while they constitute an active minority. The silent majority of Crypto-Native individuals are fading away.
In my observation, the invaluable asset behind Nouns is the influence network of its Crypto-Native community. Despite their customary silence in public discourse, this majority has immensely contributed to the implicit brand and creativity of Nouns, standing as core contributors to the treasury auction. Often, they advocate for Nouns in various online and offline settings. My personal journey to joining the Nouns community is a testament to the impact of this group.
Nonetheless, the incentive flaws in the forking phenomenon are driving away many Crypto-Native players . The ripple of their exit is a concerning undercurrent for the dynamism and growth of Nouns.
I find it imperative to bring attention to a structural shift within the Nouns community’s holder group. The spotlight is predominantly on Voters or Arbitrageurs, while they constitute an active minority. The silent majority of Crypto-Native individuals are fading away.
In my observation, the invaluable asset behind Nouns is the influence network of its Crypto-Native community. Despite their customary silence in public discourse, this majority has immensely contributed to the implicit brand and creativity of Nouns, standing as core contributors to the treasury auction. Often, they advocate for Nouns in various online and offline settings. My personal journey to joining the Nouns community is a testament to the impact of this group.
Nonetheless, the incentive flaws in the forking phenomenon are driving away many Crypto-Native players . The ripple of their exit is a concerning undercurrent for the dynamism and growth of Nouns.
We oppose this proposal due to the evident abuse of agenda-setting power during the “Nouns Fork“. It is operating under a facade of procedural justice. The current voting outcomes are a result of this abuse. We do not recognize the legitimacy of all previous community votes related to the Fork feature, as they violate procedural rules and only lead to increased uncertainty, division, and a breakdown of trust within NounsDAO.
This abuse manifests on two levels:
**1.Proposal 356 bundles multiple proposals together.**
Proposals 353, 354, and 356 combine two distinctly different topics and levels of importance. This raises the question: Should we, during significant constitutional reforms, bundle distinct and important proposals together for community discussion?
Treating the Fork and V3 other features as two separate proposals is essential. The Fork proposal is a constitutional-level reform, the focal point of community disagreements, as its outcome will directly alter Nouns' foundational incentive mechanisms and organizational structure. On the other hand, the V3 feature upgrade will change the interaction flow for governance participants.
Two proposals with distinctly different objectives are bundled together. One addresses fundamental changes to the underlying incentive system, fraught with significant contradictions; the other optimizes governance processes, which seems beneficial. Combining these two muddles the discourse around Proposal 356, preventing a clear and rational discussion of its pros and cons. For governance researchers, such mixed proposals are extremely frustrating. Garbage in, garbage out. This is one consequence of the abuse of agenda-setting power.
**2.More crucially, the NounsDAO Fork proposal bypassed the regular procedure and should not have been proposed by just one team.**
From its inception to its implementation, the Fork feature was emotionally driven, sidestepping the intended process. After Proposal 248's Rage Quit, a utopian voice emerged in the community, envisioning an infinitely forked NounsDAO future. Two emotional currents hastily pushed out the NounsDAO Fork feature, **bypassing the regular procedure.**
Now, it's evident that the hastily introduced mechanism has significant issues. It has attracted arbitrageurs, undermining foundational governance. On-chain data clearly supports this perspective. Since May, the number of Nouns holders has stagnated: 392 holders on May 1st and 392 on August 21st. Most Nouns in the past four months have been snagged by arbitrageurs.
**The current NounsDAO is under attack. It's evident that the Fork mechanism has serious issues, a fact supported by clear data, rather than sensationalized stories.**
Until a credible-neutrality solution emerges, terms like "decentralization," "adventurous spirit," "culture," and "global public goods movement" are just marketing narratives. We need to pause, revert the NounsDAO Fork feature to the research phase.
The right process should resemble Proposal 216: "Mandated Round: Private Voting Research Sprint". Engage multiple teams, foster innovation, and present diverse forking solutions. Instead, the Verb team, already overwhelmed, was pushed by community anxiety to offer an over-engineered Fork solution that arbitrageurs are now exploiting.
We are being forced to accept a flawed proposal and then debate and take sides. This is another consequence of agenda-setting power abuse.
Now, pro-fork arbitrageurs might have more than 100 votes, which is very risky. **We strongly urge all independent Nouners, not swayed by vested interests, to vote against Proposal 356 and follow these steps:**
1. **Reject Proposal 356. Propose a V3 upgrade without the Nouns Fork and proceed with regular upgrades.**
2. **Revert the Fork feature to the research phase, initiate a DAOFork Research Sprint, solicit research from various teams, and re-advance the proposal.**
1. As regular Dashboard users, we recognize Maty's critical role in mitigating NounsDAO's governance debt.
2. The monumental task of constant Dashboard sync and weekly reports can be mentally taxing. Self-care is paramount.
3. We propose, echoing a member's suggestion, to consider removing the weekly report section.
1. As regular Dashboard users, we recognize Maty's critical role in mitigating NounsDAO's governance debt.
2. The monumental task of constant Dashboard sync and weekly reports can be mentally taxing. Self-care is paramount.
3. We propose, echoing a member's suggestion, to consider removing the weekly report section.
1. As regular Dashboard users, we recognize Maty's critical role in mitigating NounsDAO's governance debt.
2. The monumental task of constant Dashboard sync and weekly reports can be mentally taxing. Self-care is paramount.
3. We propose, echoing a member's suggestion, to consider removing the weekly report.
1. As regular Dashboard users, we recognize Maty's critical role in mitigating NounsDAO's governance debt.
2. The monumental task of constant Dashboard sync and weekly reports can be mentally taxing. Self-care is paramount.
3. We propose, echoing a member's suggestion, to consider removing the weekly report.
1. As regular Dashboard users, we recognize Maty's critical role in mitigating NounsDAO's governance debt.
2. The monumental task of constant Dashboard sync and weekly reports can be mentally taxing. Self-care is paramount.
3. We propose, echoing a member's suggestion, to consider removing the weekly report.
This is the best proposal of the year! :)
Our abstention merely reflects our rule to vote in opposition only.
The process of canonization is vitally important to the cultural layer of NounsDAO. Just as literary classics, religious scriptures, and classical music patterns undergo the process of becoming "canonical," NFTs will experience the same journey.
Think of this proposal as an important culture experiment for the NounsDAO culture. The task here is to transition the Droposal process - a growing custom within our community - into an automated and unrestricted protocol.
It's an underappreciated move that could significantly enhance NounsDAO's cultural layer, pushing us towards becoming a more vibrant protocol network.
This proposal doesn't bolster the long-term sustainability of the NounsDAO ecosystem. As a public infrastructure, the proposed project falls short in its utility and potential impact.
Internally, our views diverge:
1. The distinct fighting game community is valued by many in our team who also follow EVO. Contrasted with saturated markets like LoL and Dota, which offer low investment returns, the less intense business competition in fighting games suggests a higher ROI.
2. The lack of detailed plan for EVO exposure questions the team's ability to execute efficiently, suggesting it might be worth revisiting this proposal later.
Despite this, we appreciate Nouns Esports' work. It's interesting to hear players from other communities discuss NounsDAO' Dota team.
Internally, our views diverge:
1. The distinct fighting game community is valued by many in our team who also follow EVO. Contrasted with saturated markets like LoL and Dota, which offer low investment returns, the less intense business competition in fighting games suggests a higher ROI.
2. The lack of detailed plan for EVO exposure questions the team's ability to execute efficiently, suggesting it might be worth revisiting this proposal later.
Despite this, we appreciate Nouns Esports' work. It's interesting to hear players from other communities discuss NounsDAO' Dota team.This proposal doesn't bolster the long-term sustainability of the NounsDAO ecosystem. As a public infrastructure, the proposed project falls short in its utility and potential impact.
I recommend everyone to read this report, <Is stETH Liquid Enough?>
https://marketing.kaiko.com/is-steth-liquid-enough
The risk of mass liquidation of stETH is higher than we imagined.
1. Cozy.finance offers a service with high risk/reward asymmetry. It lacks the capacity to solve the problems it promises to address when stETH faces massive liquidity risk.
2. The previous round of voting success for Cozy.finance didn't come from its brand and services, but from the last-minute flip of voting results due to Federation's bribery, as well as their entangled interests (list of investors).
**Designers abuse their own protocols, or backdoors in other protocols, to achieve short-term user growth. **
**They don't understand the value of trust neutrality, but rather resemble a group of actors performing their decentralized belief on stage.**
**In the Crypto world, the wrong people should never have been cooperated with in the first place.**
We object to this proposal, as we see it as a covert governance attack, wasting the time and energy of governance participants.
Cozy is a credible-neutrality insurance protocol that we value highly. Similar models have been adopted by Liquity and Aave (...) and have stood the test of the market. For this reason, we are optimistic about Cozy's future.
But it offers a crap insurance proposal for nounsdao with grossly unequal risks and benefits to recklessly usurp the time and energy of all governance participants and covertly complete its product seeding user capture plan. This behavior is disgusting to our researcher of the proposal.
Our opposition stems from two main reasons:
1. Cozy currently lacks the capacity to address the issues it claims to solve. Its insurance pool is only $500,000, and its contract has only been deployed for a month, yet it claims to protect $1,000,000 in assets. For policyholders, this presents a garbage product with a severe imbalance of risk and reward.
2. The second reason comes from the opinion of the proposal researcher: I view this proposal as a covert governance attack. The time and energy invested by the Nouns collective in governance is a pure public good, and Cozy's blatant consumption of all governance participants' time and energy is a Standard hitchhiking behavior. It forced me to spend an hour researching its mechanisms, gathering data, and creating documents to explain to our squad why its proposal is terrible.. If there are too many proposals like Cozy's, I won't invest time in researching and debating Nouns' proposals anymore, which infuriates me.
Our abstention vote is not a sign of disapproval, but rather a reflection of our principle of never casting a vote in favor. In reality, we highly value their work.
1. We acknowledge David and Elad as top-notch, native Hackers with the talent and self-awareness to create industry-standard code. We endorse the plan by Nouns Governo,, which is building a more advanced module architecture for NFT governance. Nouns DAO has consistently been leading the standards of NFT governance, which is one of the reasons we love Nouns.
2. Our only concern is that the development of NounsDAO's core smart contracts relies solely on one team. We hope that more teams will join the exploration of NounsDAO's governance standards in the future. Also, the abstraction of the work makes it difficult for the community to understand its impact. However, this is not a problem of David & Elad's. In fact, NounsDAO is very fortunate to be able to work with them.
The reasons we have chosen to cast abstention votes are:
Based on our personal experiences, the animations we watched in our childhood still hold a place in our hearts even after many years.
We don't fully understand the process of how children receive and comprehend information.