0xbc3ed6b5…72c4sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#17,535,501·view on Etherscan
Am excited to vote FOR this proposal, and want to use my vote to flesh out some of my thinking on the topic of how I think about developing the DAO, code-wise.
I would prefer that Nouns onchain code changes are driven in two ways:
1. The DAO decides that it wants to make some changes, and then solicits quotes or runs a prop house for ideas on how to implement the change.
2. Teams make direct proposals to the DAO on code changes *they* think should be made, and the DAO funds them to work on it.
In either case, I think the DAO should be driving changes and should generally be voting on a per feature basis.
I dislike funding teams in an open ended way for a few reasons
1. I think it becomes unclear to outsiders what is and isn't being worked on, and how they can get involved. Anything important to the DAO will be taken on by a funded team with an open mandate. Which in a way is great: talented people are ready to work on stuff! But I also think can feel like capture of the codebase.
2. I am not sure how much the DAO code should be changing, and on what frequency. If teams are funded to work on stuff, they’ll find stuff to do, but it’s not guaranteed that the DAO would vote to have each of those things worked on, if it was up to them.
3. Finally, it often ends up that features get bundled together in updates, and it makes it hard for DAO members to make voting decisions.
That all said, there are practicalities at play. Most good devs want some stability. They do not want to need to get funding feature to feature. And also, due to the nature of how smart contracts are developed, it is efficient to bundle things into a single audit.
So, to the case at hand. With Verbs we have great devs, who have been with Nouns nearly since the start, and have done great work. The pay is high, but is on par for staff engineer levels of salary + equity, and I think high pay is to be expected for the uncertain nature of this job (will you get funded again in six months?) and the lack of things like health benefits.
I read this proposal and think it mostly falls in category (2) above—“Teams make direct proposals to the DAO on code changes *they* think should be made, and the DAO funds them to work on it.” I think an NFT-first governor is important, I think seeing through the Fork is important, tips to governance clients, undo votes, and price oracle would be nice to have!
So, I think we have a good thing going and I think it makes sense to fund the development of the work proposed. I know Verbs team is highly interested in figuring out the best way to develop the DAO, so I look forward to working with them to figure this all out!
As a small practical suggestion, I wonder if we could start the practice of allowing the DAO to vote on each feature included in an audit, and possibly even just reserve an audit slot every six months that many teams can get code into?
Thanks David and Elad for all you do!
*sent from voter.wtf*