0x13eef4ef…da33sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#20,821,877·view on Etherscan
Thanks for the questions! I'll do my best to answer them below:
zherring.eth
1. The term 'delegate' might not be the most accurate. It's hard to say what the final ux is, but Wand could learn your preferences and suggest voting directions with reasonable accuracy (perfect accuracy isn't necessarily required). It can also notify you of proposals or candidates that you'd be exceptionally interested in. That way you can spend time on the props you care about the most and go with Wand suggestions for others. As an example, I would use this already for Noundry or NounSwap props. Now imagine Nouns is 5x the size with 10x the prop inbound. I hope something like this exists in the future.
2. Yes! That would fall under, "Develop automated proposal review and feedback tools"
3. Nothing formal. The path to increasing results from here is very obvious to me, so doing that now feels a bit too early.
jkm.eth, humpty.eth
I get what you're saying and appreciate the feedback. I would say that I want / need this, and by extension Nouns does too. A lot of that comes from personal experience founding DAOs, participating in Nouns, and even some recent events which led me to start exploring this direction. Many find DAOs intriguing, but regular participation is something they are unlikely to ever commit to. An interesting thought experiment is what if you could allow these people to ease into governance? Delegation may not work because of the principal-agent problem. If they could receive unbiased suggestions tailored to their tastes, this low-effort commitment might be enough to foster genuine interest and participation.
Decentralized governance is one of the most valuable use cases for crypto, and we'll have many more hanging out with us in the future. I don't think they will convert if governance looks like it does now. The funding gives me the budget needed to execute well on Wand. The costs don't really mimic those of other recently funded tech proposals. What you see now is only a prototype and I ask that you use it as a way to stir your imagination rather than judge it as the finished product.
Personally I've used Wand over the past couple of days as a sentiment indicator. There's been quite a bit of talk in discords about the DUNA and seeing the results on Wand does capture a bit of what I've experienced. The individual votes aren't accurate but the sentiment pull has truth there. You can even see this with how Wand has graded its own prop. Specifically raising concern about the amount of funding which I saw in Nouncil as well. This is a great demonstration, so I'm happy it's happening live.
Feel free to keep the questions coming. I'll think more about your feedback and ways to reduce these concerns!
+1
> I do believe AI and LLMs are viable in governance. But I also would prefer a smaller test to understand its implications better. Is there a way to reduce the scope and lower the funding request?
+1
> This is a pretty big ask for a product that hasn't been proven to be needed/wanted. Like Zherring said, I haven't seen any indication that this would actually solve governance issues. In fact, it could open a lot of attack vectors that still need to be explored (i.e. what if an attacker proposes a prop to drain the treasury and somehow tricks the AI to suggest everyone vote yes?). I think technologies like this show a lot of promise and should be explored, but I would want to see more validation before committing to such a large budget.