0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,261,708·view on Etherscan
Although this proposal has already been canceled, I’d like to share my thoughts on the design.
This protocol introduces a problematic design choice: requiring Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into third-party-designed vaults. This fundamentally conflicts with the preferences of most Nouns holders. The current delegation mechanism works well by separating NFT ownership and voting rights without requiring holders to relinquish control of their assets. In contrast, this proposed protocol forces holders to give up ownership, a decision that could carry unacceptable risks. If issues arise, the developers would be unable to mitigate the potential fallout.
A key concern is that the $⌐◧-◧ contract, which seems to inspire this protocol, has not yet been deployed or tested under real-world conditions. Without sufficient testing and risk evaluation, adopting such a system for governance introduces unnecessary vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, if Nouncil adopts this design, I believe it would significantly reduce the willingness of delegators to assign their voting rights to Nouncil. Trust is essential in delegation, and this proposal undermines that trust by adding unnecessary risk and complexity.
That said, I recognize the effort behind this proposal and the intention to innovate. I hope future designs will better align with the community's expectations by preserving NFT ownership while enabling secure and flexible governance. A more thoughtful approach could retain the strengths of the current delegation system while addressing any gaps with minimal risk.
Thank you.