0x289715ff…c84fsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,276,946·view on Etherscan
@0x39a7...aBc0
Hey Jane, thanks for the early signal so we can make adjustments. I have some edits going live to address your feedback shortly.
1. Edited the timeline and budget to better reflect the milestone setup you requested. Budget is now $270k vs. the original $575k.
2. Appreciate the nudge here - I added a link to figma + two possible token models we are thinking about for the revnet system. Let me know if you have any other questions or ideas here, we value your input. Per your last feedback, we also commit to splitting at least 10% of the issuance with Nouns DAO.
3. I just updated the website to support up to 36 nouns. Let me know if you are able to vote now. Base has increased the gas limit every week. This lets the Flows contracts take more proofs in a single txn. I also added another item to our roadmap - handling large voting transactions more gracefully - if those fixes are still necessary after the update today. Let me know if it works for you! We recently introduced dynamic quorum on salary pools, so as more votes come in, the pools will scale up. They are no longer fixed at 25%.
4. We are actively working to use less closed source AI. There will be strong open source reasoning models soon. Current open source models are not smart enough for some of the pipelines we have though. I expect this to change in the next few months and will keep you updated as we continue to shift towards open source models.
5. I agree the DAO should not be a forever funding payroll for non-sustainable projects. This is the whole reason we want to upgrade Flows to enable more capital inflows. We also plan to grade builders on their ability to become sustainable / raise funds. We are on the same page here, we just need the runway to build it out.
6. I understand this point. I'd ask folks getting paid through Flows to abstain. Please don't vote us down just because we are funding Nouns holders though. Hope that makes sense.
>
>
> Thank you, Rocketman, for the revised proposal. I appreciate the efforts you’ve made to reduce the budget and prioritize accountability tooling. It’s clear you’re listening to the community and adapting. That said, I still cannot support this proposal in its current form. Let me explain why:
>
> ### 1. **The Budget Remains Too Large**
>
> You’ve mentioned Break Even Movement should “smooth out” capital flows when voting. But this proposal still asks for $435K upfront. Why not take a “smooth” approach—split the budget into milestones incrementally, and let the DAO assess results before committing more capital?
>
> ### 2. **Token Model Still Unknown **
>
> In the previous round, multiple members of the community asked for a clear tokenomics simulation. How will this token work? Who receives how much? What are the expected flows of capital, voting power, and upside? None of that has been modeled or shared. Without a working token design, I can’t justify approving a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar allocation.
>
> ### 3. **Large voting block cannot Influence Flows.wtf cash flows**
>
> It's hard for large Noun holders (30+ votes) to influence how Flows funds are allocated. Until there’s an easy mechanism for large voting block like 5gram and me can manage your internal treasury distribution, I will continue to vote NO. And the baseline “salary” allocations(75%) are too high, I need to see this parameter go down to below 25%.
>
> ### 4. **No to Closed AI**
>
> Please don't use Claude/OpenAI. Using DAO funds to enrich closed, centralized AI models is a hard NO from me.
>
> ### 5. **DAO Is Not a Payroll System**
>
> The DAO is not here to provide recurring salaries indefinitely. If a project cannot survive without continued subsidy from the DAO, it may not be the right fit. I deeply believe in the public goods spirit—but that doesn’t mean guaranteed income. For context: **OpenBSD’s 2025 funding goal is $400K**, and that project secures the global internet. This proposal exceeds that amount.
>
> ### 6. **No Funding Structures That Create Vote Buying Dynamics**
>
> Flows distributes DAO funds. If these funds are then used to influence voters who are themselves beneficiaries, that crosses the line into implicit vote buying. This undermines the integrity of governance. I oppose any system that blurs these lines.
>
> ------
>
> I appreciate all the value Flows has created so far. I know this isn’t an easy system to build. But if we want it to become a sustainable layer of Nouns governance, it must meet a higher bar for financial clarity, openness, and alignment with DAO-wide control structures.
>
> I’m always open to future collaboration and hope to support a tighter, more accountable version of this vision down the line.
>
I appreciate all the feedback you have given so far. Our goal is to make Flows sustainable so that Nouns can succeed and have massive impact around the world. We are constantly working towards more financial transparency, openness, and alignment with voter consensus. Hope this puts your concerns to rest. Happy to chat over voice/DMs further if you want. Really want to get this passed so we don't lose the builders we have onboarded through Flows, as salaries have now stopped fully. Thanks for your time - rocketman.