0x7a2fe221…d366sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#16,054,836·view on Etherscan
I struggled with this prop. While I love the team, I don't believe this effort will lead to an optimal outcome for the DAO. Given my recent posts on scaling small grants, I believe Prop 175 takes us in the opposite direction.
- Inefficient capital allocation
The prop asks for 65Ξ to allocate 10Ξ, a ~90% admin overhead.
- Non-scalable approach
The approach appears to revolve around "consulting" services that are very manually intensive and do not scale, unless we want to employ a small army of consultants at the DAO like a Deloitte, Ernst & Young, PwC, KPMG, etc.
- Unnecessary creation of static website tools
We should lean into automated tools like Prop House or AddressBoard. Information repositories already exist in the form of Nouns Center, which is already linked to from the main Nouns website.
- Unclear outcomes or measurements of success
How is success being measured here? What benchmarks would need to be hit so we can decide if we want to fund an effort like this again (or clone it in other areas)?
I encourage the team to discuss this with the builder community and come back with a prop that addresses the broader concerns raised on their efforts.
You can read more on the reasons here:
https://discourse.nouns.wtf/t/on-scaling-small-grants-at-nouns/3080