0x289715ff…c84fsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,348,203·view on Etherscan
@0x094B...C8B8
I respect your perspective. Thanks for caring about Nouns <3. I will say, many people on Flows are still building.
I'm with you though, the Nouns flywheel is broken. The hypothesis of Nouns is: invest in things that bring attention to the brand -> more people will buy a Noun. In line with this idea, our hope was to design a system to fund grassroots impact, onboard people authentically, and drive more demand for the auction.
We came to the realization recently that this won't work. Most people have no way to support Nouns. Auctions are too expensive. But - we believe we can make it easier to support Nouns through donations, commerce, and revnets.
Our attempt with Prop 776 was to figure out how to make Flows sustainable, so that many more people can build on the Nouns brand. Turn Nouns into a seed-investor in projects. A startup of startups. We want to incubate projects that earn revenue for the entire Flows system, cut Nouns some upside, and ultimately make all of these small-scale Nounish projects sustainable. I'm happy to pivot fully and work towards building this vision, while cutting back existing Flows.
I still believe in Nouns, and don't see any other solutions on the table to fix our downward spiral. Voting down props at the last minute with widespread support while presenting no alternative solutions to fix the flywheel is counter-productive. Let's brainstorm together. What is your vision for Nouns? Let's hop on a call.
>
>
> The treasury we steward today is limited. In that context, I personally believe we should be cautious about using funds to actively “incentivize behavior.” I want to help build a community that resembles something like the Linux Kernel—an open, mission-aligned ecosystem where contributors gather out of belief, not compensation. If the community disappears when incentives stop, we never had a true community to begin with.
>
> The risk I see is this: the more we normalize continuous funding as the default, the more we build structural dependencies. Over time, this can form a well-meaning but entrenched interest group whose operations rely on ongoing funding. If we ever need to cut back, the social cost and backlash may become too high. I'd rather face that challenge early, while it’s still manageable.
>
> I want to emphasize that I respect the intentions behind this and similar proposals. I understand the motivation to build systems that fund impactful grassroots work—and I agree we need better tools for that. But I don’t believe Nouns, as it stands today, is ready to play the role of a philanthropic foundation. We are a small DAO with under $8M in liquid assets and facing structural burn. At this stage, I believe we need to think like a startup—prioritizing sustainability, discipline, and alignment over scale.
>
> That doesn’t mean we stop supporting creativity or experimentation. But we need to be clear-eyed about tradeoffs and avoid easy answers that feel good in the short term but harm us in the long run.
>
> I will do the hard and necessary work now—so that Nouns can last.
>