0xc3fdadba…36bbsent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#18,314,276·view on Etherscan
I appreciate the hard work from Verbs and Wilson on the Burn, and recognize that many in the DAO already excited about this version of the future. With respect, I disagree with this approach. I don't think that as it stands today, our community is ready for this level of forced acceleration in spending, and don't think in general that it is wise to be forced to spend.
As someone who firmly believes in the meme value of Nouns, and is willing to invest heavily into it, I see this proposal as strictly increasing the overall risk of the project. If we think we are currently on track to spend the excess value by the burn date, then why have this mechanism at all?
If we want Nouns to last years to come, there will inevitably be dry spells, and we don't want to be forced into allocating into things that we wouldn't otherwise have just to avoid burning. If we're dissatisfied with the progress of some of our biggest spends, we want to be able to credibly say "hey, you need to change this or we might not be excited to fund you again". The burn removes that ability.
While it's true that more positive spend generates more attention from voters and proposers, I don't think it's the "healthy" way to do that. If we want to attract quality artists and builders, then we need to do the hard work of making Nouns more attractive to proposers by solving the friction points they experience today.
If attracting proposers is the goal, I'd rather see us invest in things like: extending candidate functionality, function tipping for clients, streaming payments tied to propdates, nouns retro-rewards, droposals, creating an incentive for proposal sponsors, etc.
As a builder, I should be excited about the burn because technically the DAO is now "forced" to spend more, but I'm not, because it doesn't solve any of the underlying mechanical issues that make contributing to Nouns DAO difficult. Throwing more money at the problem will make it seem like things are better, when in fact might actually make it harder to figure out where the builder pain points are.
Although the Burn might be exciting in the short term (and to be honest, I personally can't help but be excited to see how the experiment plays out), I worry that it unnecessarily jeopardizes the long term survivability of Nouns. Yes, we can technically "unship" it, but the reality is that once in, it'll be very hard to gather the social consensus to take it out, just like the fork. Even if we discover that the cons outweighs the pros, I expect that we'll have to live with it and try to fix it forward.
I want to be working on Nouns with everyone here for 10 years to come, and view the Burn as introducing more risk than benefit on that time horizon.