0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,290·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 253, which is 6 for, 10 against and 11 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed):
Opinions opposing this proposal:
1. The theme of Hack Week is not clear, and the proposal is a bit rough.
2. Time. The poster indicates that it will be held from 3.27-4.2, which is very urgent. 70% of the effect of Hack Week comes from early preparation and BD, especially as an online hackathon, the promotion and BD time in the early stage needs to be longer.
3. 99 ETH expenditure is too high. It's unreasonable to hastily organize a Nouns ecosystem Hack Week for about $200,000.
Supporting views on the proposal:
1. A replicable growth model has been proven in the Nouns ecosystem. From Open Round and private voting research rounds, this is the best Nouns growth model. And every launch will attract enough attention and increase community cohesion. This proposal belongs to repeating an already successful model to promote ecological growth for Nouns with no logical problems.
2. The difference in this proposal is that Hack Week will involve more operational work than Prop House rounds without promotion or operation; this replicable model can actually be optimized by Proposal 253 for mature growth within Nouns' ecosystem.
3. Behind Proposal 253 are teams such as Nouns.build, Nouns Square, Grant Protocol etc., who together form a golden team among all proposals related to nouns - they are trustworthy due to their understanding of noun spirits as well as professionalism and execution capabilities.
4. On another note: I am concerned that overly professional requirements for proposals may stifle community atmosphere. Many proposers have no problem with logic or implementation but may get bogged down in how professional their proposals should be instead of focusing on what's best for nouns.