0xbe957a47…3e57sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,222,576·view on Etherscan
@0xBe14...57e6
Hey Humpty. Stepping back in here to clarify and reframe my response to Mike and others.
The impact here isn’t short term or immediately legible by design. Nouns already has a long history of funding visible, obvious initiatives. This proposal is intentionally something different.
The impact to Nouns is long term and reputational. Think Rolex × Wimbledon (not a perfect analogy, but directionally useful). Rolex doesn’t sponsor Wimbledon to sell watches that week. The value is long term alignment with excellence, continuity and seriousness. An association that compounds over decades.
Similarly here, the bet is Nouns being the DAO associated with serious cultural interpretation of the space, rather than only funding more production or short lived moments that quickly fade from memory.
Interestingly discussed this on a space with Bixbite, BigTrav205 and others recently. She seemed to agree at the time, but maybe the context here has muddied things.
>
>
> Ask seems reasonable but similarly to Bixbite, I don't see the impact to Nouns. Maybe I'm missing something?
>
> +1
>
> > At first I thought this proposal was to fund the critics to write essays on Nouns and I was on the fence, but after finding out that the proposal is to fund the critics to write essays on Web3 art & culture in general just isnt something that excites me much. I personally would like to fund things that directly benefit Nouns unless it's a public good / charitable cause, which critic opinion essays do not fall into that category for me (I know some might feel it does though)