0x073f0dc5…2e63sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#25,467,669·view on Etherscan
This is actually laughable....
1) Nouns is a DAO, which means anyone is allowed to put up a proposal.... sounds very 'Ivory Tower' of you to say that because someone isn't a token holder their voice / opinion should not matter... pretty sure you participated in Nouns for YEARS without owning or being delegated a Noun... pretty sure you were upset when Noun 40 treated you that way, yet here we are full circle because WAGs gave you his delegation, so now you want to treat Beans the same way.
2) You sound like a high schooler...'I've heard people say bad things about Satori, therefore this proposal is unjust' I personally have never called Satori or anyone a b*tch, because thats not language I would use... but I have said NUMEROUS times that we are not getting value for this proposal:
- There are barely any props passing, therefore there isnt much KYC work to do
- We have had zero revenue coming in, so that reduces the accounting collaboration.
- We have already gone through the tax process so it's not something new that needs to have operation flow designed.
If you would think logically about this proposal it's hard to justify paying $60k a year for someone to sit on what, one call a month WITH Index, or maybe be available IF someone has a question AND Index isn't available?
Satori said cancelling the prop would effect him because he has a mortgage and a kid... that's called EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION. If he's that concerned about losing his job, maybe he should provide value?
3) Your saying this prop is a personal vendetta of mine? Interesting because I actually have been rather inactive from the community for the past ~2 months preparing for a move and dealing with my cats unexpected cancer diagnosis... so truthfully I had ZERO to do with this candidate. I went to my first Nouncil call in 2 months last Thursday, Beans mentioned his candidate and asked for a Sponsor, so I sponsored.... but way to go assuming things.
4) It's hard to take you serious as a voice of ethics & morality considering you maliciously rugged the whole treasury from Food Nouns, you fleeced the DAO for money to research being a 501c3, then talk about wanting to wind down the Duna and fork. Get down from your high horse Wylin!
+1
> it's inappropriate at best for a proposal of this nature to be put onchain given the proposer showed up in the past few months and is not a token-holder with skin in the game
>
> I've also personally been witness to and heard several accounts of the proposer/ sponsor and the groups they participate in slandering Satori's character, calling him a bitch and other names
>
> the proposal seems to be a personal vendetta of the sponsor, enacted through a third party by a particular biased context presented on hours-long Discord calls
>
> there are number of factors hurting Nouns as outlined in the Nouns is Dead candidate. some of it is the protocol design itself, some is the inability or unwillingness of large holders to coordinate with each other and with smaller token holders.
>
> the culture Lil Nouns & Nouncil have developed of viciously attacking anyone who doesn't spend 40 hours per week with them on Discord calls mocking other people, hating on large token holders and accusing anyone who is willing to work with them of being a grifter or extractor, accusing anyone who requests treasury funds for a new initiative of being an extractor despite these same people having been funded themselves several times over by Nouns and its subDAOs, is by far the most deleterious to the DAO and its members
>
> rather than taking action to innovate, create win-wins, and create new value, the rest of us are instead presented with impotent protest and facsimiles of action that either have no chance of passing before ever going onchain or are actively seeking to leverage the DAO to hurt other DAO members
>
> they say misery loves company, and unfortunately this group continues to try dragging the rest of us into their misery with them.
>
> ---
>
> "Sentiment is low, morale is lower, and the forums and calls that once felt like a shared project increasingly feel like a battlefield.
>
> Many long-time smaller holders now decline to engage at all with the newest cohort of large holders — and, in the experience of a great many contributors, those who do try to engage across that line, or who simply take an unpopular position, are met with pile-ons and personal attacks rather than argument.
>
> Some of the sharpest of that hostility has come from within organized blocs — Lil Nouners and Nouncil among them — and its effect has been an exodus of exactly the thoughtful, good-faith participants a healthy DAO most needs. This is the human mechanism behind the "small, fatigued core" above: it is not only that governance is tiring, it is that being here has become unpleasant, and enough capable people have concluded it is not worth the abuse.
>
> A DAO can, in principle, redesign a quorum or a reserve price; it cannot legislate its way back to trust once the culture has curdled this far."