0xae4705dc…5fedsent to0x8d59e106…2902·#24,494,217·view on Etherscan
Not against you or the effort, just asking that recurring spend comes with a clearly defined mandate, measurable outcomes, and aligned cost to treasury size, documented onchain.
+1
> lol..
>
> So what i'm hearing is you'd be a no on any future prop from us.
>
> Oh wait, you voted no on this first one also... lol..
>
> I assume you don't want to get on that call I mentioned in my last response and just continue here onchain? Fine —
>
> Yes this report was late - Just like Dream, your Ice Cream truck, your book, things/timelines changes, huh?.. I'm still posting to the account weekly, but honestly making me rethink even doing that now.. If you had showed up to any calls after this prop passed and didn't become a bitter recluse at Lils on a revenge arch writing a hit piece in your "book" we funded, maybe you could have helped shape the engagement like Chompix did, who made some clearly brilliant suggestions...... Happy you're around now tho to help take a final fat shit all over the last 5 months of work.. LOL!
>
> At least you can't say I didn't emphasize noc! heh
>
> ....I dunno, report clearly shows that retweeting isn't cutting it.. thats most of whats been done since we ended in December. Agree to disagree on many of your points.
>
>
> <3
>
> +1
>
> > To be clear, I agree that the X account alone cannot reliably increase mint volume in the current market. Onboarding is more complex than tweet frequency.
> >
> > That said, during voting, roi in the form of mints was explicitly cited as a kpi. I remember statements along the lines of: if this doesn’t pay for itself via mints, it’s a failure. If that’s no longer the framing that is cool with me, and I’m not particularly interested in debating that point as it was an unrealistic kpi to begin with.
> >
> > On amplification: I do think you both put effort in. This isn’t a you-did-nothing-critique. My issue is primarily price and accountability relative to outcomes. We spent roughly ~$10k on management over 3 months. Same critique I had going into the proposal, and during the pitch on calls, we heard high price justified as:
> >
> > - “Experts”
> > - “Reputation on the line”
> > - Implied partnerships
> > - Big distribution thesis
> > - Clear analytics / next-phase strategy
> >
> > The proposal states:
> >
> > “Month 3: Finalize trial with comprehensive analytics report and propose next steps for DAO consideration.”
> >
> > We are now six months removed and the defined next-phase strategy is still pending.
> >
> > This isn’t a complex systems problem. It’s social media management for a niche NFT community. It should not require a half-year reflection period to determine direction and, If I’m being honest, this is why, in hindsight, the price point feels misaligned with the outcomes.
> >
> > Expectations:
> >
> > - Clear partnership outreach breakdown (even if nothing materialized, who was contacted, what happened)
> > - Mint attribution attempts (even if imperfect)
> > - Holder growth analysis
> > - Defined brand guardrails
> > - A concrete next-phase plan at the end of the trial
> >
> > Instead, we got strong impressions, some viral posts, a lot of GIF output, and some reputational damage from AI slop that, in my personal experience, is now what people associate Lil Nouns with in certain circles. E.g. whilst I was in Tokyo, multiple people referenced that content specifically, it is real-world brand signal. Did showcase we can go viral, would be good to replicate in a more positive way somehow.
> >
> > We also need to acknowledge that net holder growth has not clearly improved (imo more people appear to have left than joined during this period). Market conditions matter, but so does brand perception.
> >
> > My view is that this role should be lower cost, lightweight, and primarily amplification-focused.
> >
> > Pay someone $500–$1k/month to:
> >
> > - Retweet funded creators
> > - Highlight new proposals
> > - Surface wins
> > - Run occasional Spaces
> > - Maintain consistent presence
> >
> > Young online-native ppl would jump at that opportunity, I believe our Instagram is similar cost.
> >
> > Then allocate the majority of capital toward funding durable creative IP like we are attempting already: animation, events, physical activations, artifacts, laundromats etc and use social as the amplifier, not the product.
> >
> > Distribution is important but it has to serve culture, not replace it. If we continue, I’d like:
> >
> > - A clearly defined mandate
> > - Clear brand guardrails (especially around AI output, artist commissions baked into mngmnt stream for e.g.)
> > - A cost structure aligned with treasury size
> > - A defined review cycle with stop/go criteria
> >
> > Otherwise we’re funding activity, not strategy.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > Appreciate the feedback and follow up questions —
> > >
> > > - Mint conversion impact
> > > - Holder growth
> > > - Revenue correlation
> > >
> > > To be clear, I don't think the X account alone can reliably increase mint volume in the current market. I think there is 'more to onboarding someone' — not just tweet frequency.
> > >
> > > I feel like this trial was designed to test distribution capacity and community visibility, not direct revenue conversion.
> > >
> > > If the DAO’s expectation is that ongoing social management should directly increase mint revenue, that’s likely unrealistic in the current environment.
> > >
> > > We obviously had some new holders enter (some through earning lils, a few buys as well), and others leave.. I think a lot of that is product of the current market as well..
> > >
> > > "If social is primarily amplifying funded creative output, I support it."
> > >
> > > ....thats exactly what we tried to do here. Did we miss anything you expected to see posted? How would you share content differently? Curious to hear what you think was done well and need to double down on, vs aspects you think we should cut entirely?
> > >
> > > I added a sampling of the posts (outside or retweets) to my re-cap google doc which I think represent what you're looking for?
> > >
> > > "If it becomes a recurring administrative overhead without measurable conversion or revenue impact, I would prefer allocating capital toward evergreen creative production e.g. Jake animated series, DrewFromWeb3, Trav’s event, and other creator-led initiatives that produce durable IP and long-term cultural assets."
> > >
> > > ...I don't disagree about admin overhead. but thats not what this is, imo. It's amplifying the things the dao does and the people the dao funds to make us look good and help drive in new members. It's also helping creators like the ones you mentioned onboard and bring this props forward like I did with Jake, Drew, and the other artists recently.
> > >
> > > The thesis is that being active on X helps capture top of funnel attention and mindshare through shares and new follows outside of our existing bubble. It also helps remind users and invite them to join in. Which we've been doing -- Multiple new artists have entered the discord recently and now own lil nouns. Tons of new proposers over the past few months. Due to this social trial? - Uncertain.
> > >
> > > We could def consider the trial a L if we chalk it up to certain metrics.. the question is: Should we move this to re-tweet only like Nouns? Do we think posting in some capacity is worth it? and if so, what capacity? etc..
> > >
> > > Defined next-phase strategy -- This will come later. There is still more to consider and community feedback. Would be good to get a call going where this is the topic and we decide as a DAO how we want to proceed before another prop goes up..
> > >
> > > google doc for reference: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uqzOvQfxW-1og5N1FHzxNnL7pC4WWx_s8V58brFErh4/edit?tab=t.0
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > @0xFC53...6183
> > > >
> > > > The trial clearly increased visibility and engagement. That’s good.
> > > >
> > > > However, before committing to monthly ongoing management fees, we need clarity on:
> > > >
> > > > - Mint conversion impact
> > > > - Holder growth
> > > > - Revenue correlation
> > > > - Defined next-phase strategy
> > > >
> > > > If social is primarily amplifying funded creative output, I support it.
> > > >
> > > > If it becomes a recurring administrative overhead without measurable conversion or revenue impact, I would prefer allocating capital toward evergreen creative production e.g. Jake animated series, DrewFromWeb3, Trav’s event, and other creator-led initiatives that produce durable IP and long-term cultural assets.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Propdate #2....
> > > > >
> > > > > X analytics from 9/1/2025 – 11/30/2025 during our trial:
> > > > >
> > > > > 830,837 impressions (with outliers)
> > > > > 365K impressions (without outliers)
> > > > > 43,870 engagements
> > > > > 10,300 profile visits
> > > > > 81 posts + 407 reposts and replies
> > > > > 130 bookmarks
> > > > > 504 reposts
> > > > > ~60x increase in reach vs baseline
> > > > > ~50x increase in engagement vs baseline
> > > > > 113x increase in profile visits vs baseline (26x increase without outliers)
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus 9 Spaces not originally part of this proposal (guests mentioned in propdate #1)
> > > > >
> > > > > Side by side stats to compare (Pre Trial: June-Aug) (Trial: Sept-Nov.) (Post Trial: Dec-Feb14):
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.hive.blog/DQmVMCfMPp5W7DpWW2dtrbHRP2rQvbypRPmxcwDbjXW7Zh5/lil-analyics-grid.png
> > > > >
> > > > > Screen shots (3 months prior, the 3 month trial, the 3 months post trial):
> > > > >
> > > > > Pre-Trial:
> > > > > https://images.hive.blog/DQmWCDqpnoWjvqUD5UGfepdEb1Cri5DWtT7xVqqriujxdCZ/analytics-pre-trial.png
> > > > >
> > > > > Trial:
> > > > > https://images.hive.blog/DQmemtpxFAcq1c4yFz5FzRwt9vVWFndChJVX2EnC4nvyU5K/analytics-during-trial.png
> > > > >
> > > > > Post-Trial:
> > > > > https://images.hive.blog/DQmVFoMp1Hi9axeYNzenUqpBMDxHHzdeLGAGFx1Ny1V9wG3/analytics-post-trial.png
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Not Just a Viral Moment:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes- two esports-related posts went “viral” 🫠 and generated ~466K impressions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even without those posts:
> > > > >
> > > > > ~365K impressions
> > > > > 26x baseline increase
> > > > > Median per-post distribution doubled
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Content Efficiency Improved. It wasn’t just more posts:
> > > > >
> > > > > Impressions Per Post
> > > > >
> > > > > Pre-trial: ~3,474
> > > > > Trial: ~10,257
> > > > > → 3x increase in reach per post
> > > > >
> > > > > Engagements Per Post
> > > > >
> > > > > Pre-trial: ~219
> > > > > Trial: ~541
> > > > > → 2.5x increase per post
> > > > >
> > > > > Profile Visits Per Post
> > > > >
> > > > > Pre-trial: ~22
> > > > > Trial: ~127
> > > > > → 6x increase in intent traffic
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > What Happened After Funding Ended:
> > > > >
> > > > > In the post-trial period (Dec – Feb):
> > > > >
> > > > > 23,408 impressions
> > > > > 1,255 engagements
> > > > > 163 profile visits
> > > > >
> > > > > Sustained output requires sustained time allocation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this were a traditional marketing case study, the headline would read:
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 ETH → 830K impressions, 43K engagements, and 10K high-intent visits in 90 days.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Feels like we should continue these efforts in some capacity. What do you guys think?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > You can find this update here as well: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uqzOvQfxW-1og5N1FHzxNnL7pC4WWx_s8V58brFErh4/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >