0x66cd193d…8184sent to0x3e769115…4b14·#17,047,459·view on Etherscan
Allocating 50% of the remaining treasury to nouns does not make much sense at this time. Given that the DAO has benefited very little from its existing holdings (wrt new community members, treasury growth, graduating builders), it makes more sense for us to find ways of creating more value from our existing nouns holdings (16) before committing such a large portion of the treasury.
Current arguments for extending our nouns acquisition mandate mention the benefits the dao has seen in controlling Nouns daos prop house, infering that more nouns = continued nouns prop house treasury dominance. This feels like an un-nounish objective and uncertain as it fails to take into account the high likelihood that current (and future) advantages will be reduced once the prop house team amend their voting mechanism.