0x289715ff…c84fsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,464,685·view on Etherscan
@0xeA03...CDAE
I'm all for plurality and many grant-giving models. Flows funded 220+ unique projects, that's why we built it, and that's what makes Nouns so special.
Just to clarify my poor wording: I'm not saying that Flows is the only path forward. What I mean is I don't see other ambitious capital allocation platform bets on the table, and we should be making more of those bets.
We spent $65m via DAO props. Auction prices have continued to fall.
We need to experiment with new grant giving models, and need more teams trying to make something new work. Our current model does not sustain itself. We need a change.
>
>
> appreciate the effort and passion behind this proposal, but I don’t agree with the framing that Flows is the only project capable of reversing the DAO’s trajectory. That view feels unnecessarily narrow and dismissive of the diversity and creativity that has defined Nouns from the start.
>
> Sustainability is important—but so is experimentation, plurality, and letting many models coexist. The idea that we must fully pivot to commerce-driven “onchain Y Combinator” mechanics as the path forward doesn’t resonate with me.
>
> Nouns has always been about more than just ROI. I support thoughtful evolution, but not under the assumption that everything else has failed or that this is our only hope.
>