0x9e0e9d25…57b1sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#23,333,194·view on Etherscan
Pretty much against funding or involving Nouns in any project without a clearly stated license and real open source. If the license is vague or missing, it is a legal landmine. If the code is closed, we cannot audit it, fork it, fix it, or keep it alive when the team vanishes. That kills community ownership, invites vendor lock in, and turns onchain governance into a trust exercise. We build public goods, not black boxes with a Noun slapped on top.
Minimum bar looks simple. Repo public. License explicit and permissive. Clear contribution guide and ownership of IP spelled out. Reproducible builds and basic security hygiene with reviews and tests. Permissive licenses like Apache 2.0, MIT, or BSD are fine here, they keep things simple, avoid copyleft traps, and allow the community to build without friction. Anything less reads like trust me bro code, which is cute until it hits prod and the bill arrives. And I don’t see any of it on the proposal.