0xe3d73daa…a436sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#19,363,919·view on Etherscan
"Top tier teams’ opportunity cost is far greater than Nouns’ current offer."
I disagree with this take, both for this proposal, and broadly towards other proposals. I think we as Nouns should choose to work with proposers/organizations (and proposers/orgs in turn should work with us) if we are broadly aligned in pursuing "nounish" proposals, however broadly one chooses to define "nounish".
Proposers should certainly be fairly compensated for their labor (and maybe even achieve further alignment with some form of "upside"), but I think there are better uses of our funds than spending it on optimizooooors who are weighing nouns' compensation against other projects. Nouns is such a compelling cryptonative project not because of the size of our treasury or ability to finance projects, but rather due to our idiosyncratic culture, and I think if either we or proposal recipients begin to make decisions on the basis of financial calculus that's pretty frownish.
I'm not suggesting that seneca is suggesting that in this prop, but I want to etch my reasoning on chain for future discourse.
FWIW, I am a huge fan of farcaster and huge supporter of farcaster related proposals for nounish proliferation. I'd love to first see how the existing tranche materializes before we make a decision on how to titrate the size or frequency of future farcaster X nouns proposals, but would definitely support a prop similar to this in the future.