0x41cb654d…be4asent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#20,524,752·view on Etherscan
Given the concerns regarding accountability in the proposer's previous proposal (142) [link](https://nouns.wtf/vote/142), I approach this current request with some reservations. The substantial amount being requested feels difficult to justify, especially when entrusted to a multisig setup that may lack the necessary transparency.
The proposal outlines a budget for graffiti, enhancements, PR, and other general expenses, but the details are sparse, leaving the impression that these numbers might have been chosen arbitrarily. Additionally, the fee for supporting Skate Cuida appears somewhat disconnected from the proposal's main objectives and could blur the overall focus. Past experiences suggest that this fee might also serve as part of the proposer's personal compensation.
There is also confusion about the confirmed participants and those who will simply be speaking at the event. This uncertainty adds to the concerns about the overall clarity and execution of the proposal.
Moreover, past activations with other brands at Dreamland have had only limited exposure, making this proposal feel even more ephemeral and transient in nature. Considering the proposer's history, it might be more prudent to start with a smaller, more focused proposal. It would also be valuable if the proposer could demonstrate some of the conversion potential they have, as this has not been evident in the previous Gnars-approved proposals.
Ultimately, if others do not share these concerns, the decision will rest on whether the community feels comfortable with the amount being requested. However, should this proposal move forward, I would kindly suggest that supporters advocate for a more transparent and verifiable multisig structure—especially in light of the issues that arose with Proposal 142. This is the least we can ask to ensure the integrity and success of this event if it pass, I hope it does not.
Cheers, skateboard.⌐◨-◨