0x4d16fce1…ecb1sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,371,842·view on Etherscan
@0xBe14...57e6
Thanks for the feedback and for referencing Prop 855 — it’s a strong example.
Prop 855 and this proposal actually contain the same core elements: multi-day programming, defined spaces, named activities, a clear team, media/documentation, budget transparency, and explicit outcomes. The difference isn’t level of detail — it’s what the money was being used to produce.
Prop 855 funded a production-heavy activation: a printing and minting studio, booth buildout, artist compensation, risograph operators, merch, and a dedicated production team. Even with showcase space provided at no cost, the spend reflected a fabrication- and installation-driven program.
This proposal is not a printing lab or booth build. It leverages organizer-provided amenities (stage access, MakerSpace, gallery support, facilitation) and allocates funds toward coordination, community activation, hospitality, and documentation instead. That’s why the line items differ — not because execution is less defined, but because the activation itself is different.
So to be clear: this proposal already specifies scope, programming surfaces, outputs, team, and accountability in the same way 855 did. What’s different here is the cost model and form factor, not the rigor of planning or intent.
>
>
> There has been a lot of feedback provided before this prop was put up, and at previous Nouncil calls, where it was recommended that the focus of this prop be strictly on the ETHDenver activation. Adding ETHBoulder is a distraction from what will be a tremendous effort to deliver a Nouns space that will be representative of Nouns. Resubmitting with details on how the hosts will execute the vision would alleviate many concerns. Highly recommend reviewing prop 855 for an example on how to detail the event plan, which having visited it myself, I can assert delivered as envisioned by the proposers.
>