0x10dec36b…74ccsent to0xcc268835…6ed5·#19,879,599·view on Etherscan
**The Nouncil has spoken.**
We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord https://discord.gg/fdjJpMeV6K. The calls are public and all are welcome!
You can find previous call recordings here: https://nouncil.notion.site/30328df718424f17a623859018497fc2?v=806b5234a2a34b619c3d5028bcd879f0&pvs=4
Nouncil must abstain due to the poll failing to meet the required vote threshold and resulting in a split, contentious outcome. While some members supported the proposal, citing Drew's exemplary contributions and advocating for rewarding thoughtful governance, others raised concerns about setting a problematic precedent, the need for merit-based metrics, and potential issues of fairness and propriety in distributing Nouns. The evenly divided votes reflect the complexities and differing perspectives on establishing such rewards within the Nouns community.
Individual Reasons:
**FOR - 13 VOTES**
**benbodhi** | *"An interesting precedent to set. Drew has been an excellent example of a thoughtful nouns voter and I think even if we were to backlog this type of incentive, the treasury could afford to reward the best reason givers with a noun. So I’d support setting this precedent."*
**AGAINST - 13 VOTES**
**imwylin** | *""Soft precedent" became an issue for the United States Supreme Court, when it was derided as a "disturbing aspect" of the lower court's decision, "reason to grant review" by the Supreme Court, and that it was, "hard to imagine a reason that the Court of Appeals would not have published this opinion except to avoid creating binding law for the Circuit." - (https://ncapb.foxrothschild.com/2015/02/02/soft-precedent-unpublished-opinions-in-the-fourth-circuit-court-of-appeals/)
there are no other examples of hard vs soft precedent that I can find, and I find it similarly inappropriate for Nouns to establish this grey area as a formal practice. precedent is precedent, playing fast and loose like this is poor governance.
the core reasoning of this proposal is that a merit-based reward is due. meritocratic processes require metrics.
if the proposers is of the opinion there are other voters who should be given a Noun for the same or similar merits, they should be included in the proposal. otherwise, this and the subsequent proposals land more like a vote on Nounish Social Credit Score than a vote on the merits presented. This gives the appearance of impropriety in deciding who's in the club and who isn't, which would again be poor governance.
also of note for me, is that the individual to be rewarded entered the Nouniverse via a 10Ξ grant program, and was awarded $650,000 for a coffee shop without having completed due diligence before being awarded the funds. not trying to pocket watch anyone, it does seem as if the awardee ad the desire to purchase a Noun at auction, it could have happened by now.
since we're discussing precedent, the rush to award someone such a high level of funds without them performing basic diligence or a detailed overview of what the final product would be - a severe break from the precedent set by the Nouns Deli proposal - was not, in my opinion, an example of good precedent or governance"*
**peterpandam** | *"if he wants one they are available daily, dislike the concept of nominating people to receive nouns. plenty of people who contribute to nouns who don't own one. should they all receive one?
if money is an issue, ship a prop, use some of your compensation for executing that prop to save up towards purchasing a noun.
people should want to buy a noun, not encouraged to wait around and see if they are given one."*
**sqx.pcc** | *"the ad hoc nature of nouns as gifts is..."*
**ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES**