0x289715ff…c84fsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,298,859·view on Etherscan
@0x6fB5...83b0
Why do you think flows is an ineffective way to distribute capital? We have a <10% rug rate, which is better than the Nouns treasury, and we're funding 100x the number of projects per dollar spent.
I'm constantly looking for ways to improve and break the model, but sweeping assertions aren't very helpful. Would love if you could expand on your rationale please.
To address your other point directly - Flows does not outsource governance - Nouners decide allocations with their votes. We just make it easier to fund more high quality projects.
>
>
> I don’t believe Flows is an effective way to distribute capital. I purchased a Noun to participate in governance alongside other token holders, not to have that responsibility outsourced. Flows removes my ability to meaningfully influence where and how funds are allocated.
>
> For me, governance isn’t a burden. It’s the reason I’m here. If any Nouners feel tired of that responsibility, I encourage you to delegate your vote to someone who’s eager to engage.
>
I have doubts Nouns can succeed on its current trajectory funding a few large projects a quarter. If you disagree with me there, that's fine.
In my opinion, the world where Nouns succeeds looks a lot more like small grants and less like large VC bets. In that world, I hope we can both agree that individuals vetting projects manually like in Prop House will not scale to fund thousands of projects effectively. If you think it can, I'd be curious to know how? When I asked you on your rounds topic, you didn't have any convincing answers.
Anyways, appreciate feedback as always. Trying to get some more insights into your thought process so we can improve the protocol. I remain committed to helping Nouns succeed however I can.