0xae65e700…46c0sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#21,080,440·view on Etherscan
i’m honestly a bit tired of defending my integrity against some sort of conspiracy claim about $nouns. what is this “intentional subversion of the governance process”?
i’m not pushing for some new token bag of mine. i’m advocating for a fungible token backed by nouns. i’m not even saying $nouns should be the only fungible token backed by nouns. if we think they should vote then i’m down with that. if we think they should have art i’m down with that too. the reason $nouns is dead simple with no voting isn’t because i hate governance or art, it was bc ppl were so worried about regulatory risks that i was like okay let’s just try to get the most dumb simplest thing possible through. no extra features. no upgrade controls over the contract. just pure immutable code. but ppl were STILL too worried about regulatory risks that they didn’t want the dao to fund the audit or deploy the contract. but nouns isn’t just the dao. ppl can choose to deploy and extend nouns the way they want even if the dao doesn’t fund or deploy something and that’s what happened. i’m not saying “community deployed” means some special official thing. it literally means that the dao didn’t deploy it and someone from the community did.
nouns isn’t a world ruled by the majority voting of the dao. you can push for things you believe in. you can advocate for it even if you’re in the minority and that shouldn’t be criticized as some “subversion of the governance process”. it’s ironic bc i’m simultaneously criticized as being part of a cabal that gets my way AND someone that ignores voting bc i didn’t get my way. i’m just advocating for a vision of nouns i believe in and that world includes a erc20 backed by nouns.
you’re also trying to imply that the dao disapproved $nouns and approved $(noggles unicode). why do you think ppl that voted against $nouns for regulatory reasons would suddenly have no concerns for $(noggles)? they just didn’t vote for the $(noggles) audit prop rather than voting against and for that reason it didn’t hit quorum.
also this foundation director non sense… again what is the accusation? that i’m friends with krel? krel joined a foundation board meeting bc clearly he leads the development of the leading governance client and his input can be valuable. your beloved wag was also invited in all of the same meetings bc clearly one of the largest holder’s perspective is also valuable to have as input.
i’ve joined the foundation board as an independent dao member and never been paid or used the role for my own interests. it’s been a pure service role.
we can disagree on things but this type of endless public slander makes it really hard to engage with nouns with joy
+1
> I'm supportive of the Park but find it inappropriate to gift Nouns to groups who have plans to put forward props. agreed with others re: the voting record of only Fors with ⌐◨-◨ as the VWR and previous gifted Noun delegations not producing desireable results
>
> on the topic of $nouns: the narrative is pushed that it was community deployed.
>
> after being defeated in the (admittedly plutocratic) proposal process -with another token's development succeeding the proposal process- a Foundation Director encouraged it to be released anyways: https://warpcast.com/noun40/0x4d265aab
>
> then a long-term DAO member who has been invited to Foundation meetings and been visited at his home by the Foundation Director released it in an non-upgradeable form: https://warpcast.com/noun40/0xd416bc20 & tagged the Director when asked technical questions about the token: https://warpcast.com/krel/0x2cd4850a
>
> in light of the facts at hand supporting backroom engineering by individuals with significant influence over the DAO, framing this release as "community deployed" seems wholly disingenuous, and an intentional subversion of our governance process.
>
> after allowing the token to languish for months and the core thesis of "price will go up" not playing out, the Foundation Director is now encouraging Nouns projects to support the token, and despite some of them having reservations, they are considering it in the hopes it will secure votes for their proposals.
>
> soft power coercion and subversion of the governance process fundamentally undermines the view of Nouns as an experiment in society-building, unless that vision includes unaccountable tyranny by a few, which would also fundamentally undermine the core promise on nouns.wtf of Nouns as a community-owned brand
>
> I hope DAO members will recognize that while crypto is a fundamentally permission-less space, just because we can doesn't always mean we should. please consider not going along to get along, and preserving the sanctity of our governance process