0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,302·view on Etherscan
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule.
According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 254, which is 10 for, 4 against and 5 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed):
Opposing views on the proposal:
1. The proposal emphasizes business model innovation, but using a points program to maintain user loyalty without any community ownership does not reflect innovative business models. Existing Web3 consumer explorations have shown that even if the community has a little bit of ownership, the effect will be very different.
2. The biggest concern is sustainability. Some long-standing old stores root themselves in the community and condense rich social relationships. However, operators in this proposal rely more on Nouns12 to maintain it. If people who have been in restaurants for a long time do not see or understand information about Nouns belonging to the community, then the relationship between such restaurants and Nouns is very fragile over time. In other words, if operators of the Nouns brand do not love their community, its actual effect on Nouns' culture and brand will be minimal.
3. I asked about restaurant ownership issues with Nouns12, and they replied that there was no connection between restaurant ownership and Nouns; it only had promotional effects on branding. From this perspective, it's not cost-effective.
4. We are unfamiliar with Australia's commercial environment and concerned about instability in offline space operations - such as local restaurant closure rates or whether it's possible to spend $200k decorating an establishment only for it to become unprofitable after one year.
Supporting views on the proposal:
1. I've always had special feelings towards physical spaces offline. Buildings are not just functional venues but also condensed things within meaning worlds that remain unchanged. Building a square in a community where social interactions occur frequently - like children playing around or lovers being intimate - remains constant while producing many interesting stories above them; layered cultures emerge from these buildings over time.Building architecture is unique because promoting culture is difficult yet when an offline entity exists long enough; interesting stories continue emerging from them creating multi-layered cultures.
2. Despite having several problems highlighted by opposing views regarding short-term benefits versus costs involved with this proposal, it's worth exploring and seeking Co-Create's consultation and assistance. This proposal takes an important step in Nouns' exploration of Web3+ consumption + offline community building, even if the concept may not be perfect.