0xcc5339fe…3226sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,962,160·view on Etherscan
brewing-proliferation,-one☕at-a-time-⌐◨-◨@0xB875...3309
Hey @coolbeans1r.eth, really appreciate the feedback and the breakdown.
You're right that the DAO has no lien on the hardware under the current structure. Totally get that. So here's a different approach that works as a pilot before we ask for the bigger commitment.
On the royalty model and cash return:
A 5% cash / 5% product split is a reasonable suggestion — can absolutely work with that. At current hand-production volumes and without FDA registration yet, cash royalties would be negligible, which is exactly why the machine matters.
But since we're already operating, we want to demonstrate real value before asking for that bigger
commitment.
Here's what we will be proposing instead:
Rather than pushing for $73K on faith, we pull the
infras prop and replace it with a much smaller
pilot.
We already have Pudgy licensing access through
OverpassIP — the same channel we used for Pengu Coffee — so a *Nouns x Pudgy Penguins co-branded drip coffee bag is the next move will maximise distribution across both communities from day one.
2,000–3,000 co-branded bags produced and distributed
across three channels:
- *KOL seeding — coffee boxes sent to creators and
builders across both the Nouns and Pudgy communities, same playbook we already ran with Pengu Coffee
- *Nouns holder claims + IRL event allocation** —
available to claim, shipping only, with a portion
reserved for an upcoming conference or activation
- *DYLI listing— remaining boxes listed for sale
on DYLI, price TBC, with earnings potentially flowing
back to the treasury after testing the channel
Just product and a distribution plan — no equipment, no ownership questions, no lien needed.
If the pilot works, the infra prop would make sense after:
- Real DYLI sales data
- Documented global reach across 20+ countries
- A shot at listing Nouns x Pengu Drip Coffee on Pudgy's official shop — they already sell the Nouns x Pudgy toy from Prop 325, so the relationship exists. We don't have that direct connection yet, but this pilot could be the right way to earn it
- A revised royalty structure with a 5% cash component built in
- A clear recoupment timeline the DAO can hold us to
Prove it small, scale it with evidence. If the pilot
works and Pudgy's shop becomes a realistic next step — that's when the machine becomes the obvious ask.
Does this direction make sense?
>
>
> The DAO is being asked to fund the full purchase and installation of the equipment, yet the applicant retains full ownership of these assets. If the business underperforms or the project scope shifts, the DAO has no claim to the hardware. In any industrial or commercial partnership, funding equipment installation requires either a lien on the asset, an equity stake, or a clearly defined path to recoupment if the service ceases.
>
> The "royalty" model is currently set to 10% in product. This limits the DAO’s ROI to an expense saving measure (getting coffee for events) rather than a financial return. While the proliferation aspect is valuable, it is difficult to quantify or justify as the sole return for a $73k investment. I believe the DAO should be looking for a cash back component to ensure the treasury sees a tangible financial return on its capital.
>
> Shift the royalty structure to include a cash back percentage. A 5% cash / 5% product split would ensure the DAO participates in the commercial success of the project.
>
> What recourse does the DAO have if the project fails to deliver on its production commitments?
>
> I support the goal of scaling Nounish coffee, but the current financials prioritize the applicant's business growth over the DAO's treasury sustainability. I would like to see these terms renegotiated to better align with the DAO’s interests before moving forward.
>