0x71558ae2…779csent to0xcf2f348c…b49a·#23,206,929·view on Etherscan
kyc-requirements-for-nouns-client-rewards@0x9e0e...57B1
You’re mixing separate conversations here. Let’s keep this one focused on client KYC. This didn’t need to become a thread at all, we’ve already been handling KYC and tracking client status internally. If anyone wanted clarity, they could have just asked us directly. There’s nothing to debate or argue here.
As for numbers, they’re not hidden. Everything is onchain and transparent, and also summarized at http://nouns.com/stats/clients. If KYC weren’t collected for clients, the tax obligation would be ~24% of the year-to-date rewards distributed.
The DAO has already decided that compliance is required by adopting the DUNA structure. Our role is to execute on that directive, not re-litigate it.
> The numbers matter. As you yourself said, you are obligated to inform the DAO about the situation, because at the end of the day it is the DAO’s will that decides whether to proceed with something or not. When I bring up numbers, it is not for decoration, it is because the DAO needs to see clearly what is on the table. Are we talking about something so small it is nickels and pennies, where we spend more time and resources debating than the issue is even worth, or are we talking about something substantial enough that the DAO can consciously decide whether it wants to take on that obligation or not?
>
> This clarity is critical. The DAO cannot make informed decisions without understanding the scale. A single penny and millions are not in the same universe, yet both can sit in the same conversation if the numbers are left vague. That is why, just as the DAO should have full numbers on the obligations DUNA pushed onto us from the foundation, costs and responsibilities that did not vanish but instead became ours, it should also be told whether current debates are about trivial sums or meaningful commitments.
>
> If we claim to be protecting the DAO by arguing over pennies, while at the same time being silently burdened with millions elsewhere, we are not really protecting the DAO at all. We are distracting it. The question is not only about whether to say yes or no to a particular matter, but whether we are equipping the DAO with the right scale of information so that its will can be exercised rationally. Otherwise, the DAO risks making decisions in the dark, treating small change like mountains and ignoring mountains like small change.
>
> The numbers do not just matter, they define the very context in which decisions are made. Without them, talk of obligations and protection is empty. With them, the DAO can actually see whether its time and treasury are being spent wisely, or if it is being played into fighting over pennies while carrying the weight of millions elsewhere.