0xc7a0d765…e11esent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#20,206,844·view on Etherscan
I believe that proposals for Nouns should make sure they focus on one thing: Proliferating Nouns. Unfortunately, I don't find that accurately conveyed within this prop.
Kiriko seems tangentially related to Nouns at best, and beyond logo placement and a YouTube series, the tangible returns seem minimal compared to the 25 ETH ask. Furthermore, the proposal lacks concrete metrics for success that directly benefit Nouns. While creating exams and engaging examinees might be admirable goals for Kiriko, they don't clearly translate to increased awareness or adoption of Nouns.
I appreciate the team's enthusiasm and the potential of onchain education, and I encourage the proposers to refine their concept and potentially resubmit a more focused proposal in the future. Any resubmission (and in my belief, all future proposals!) should clearly demonstrate how the project will directly contribute to Nouns' growth and visibility in a measurable way.
+1
> I voted against for v1 and am voting against here as well.
>
> Simply put I don't think this proposal is thought through very well. Most of the emphasis is on the protocol, which I'm assuming is intending on using EAS to attest to someone having completed a particular learning module. However, there isn't any depth as to how the protocol will or currently works. Since the bulk of this proposal hinges on the success of the protocol, it concerns me that there is very little protocol related substance here.
>
> Further, even if there were a thought out protocol for doing some sort of EAS for quizzes, I personally don't think this direction is worth going down. I don't think many people will care about having an attestation from an unaccredited org. Think of LinkedIn quizzes you can take -- has any recruiter in the history of time ever hired someone because they had a react cert from LinkedIn? I'm doubtful. I don't think a cert being onchain makes any difference here.
>
> Vitalik's soulbound paper (mentioned in the proposal) makes more sense to me when you think of aggregating a users activity on-chain and using that data to understand a user. For example, you could see that I have a history of voting through nouns, and have deployed a few contracts. From this you could deduce that I'm someone who is familiar with on-chain governance and can develop new products. This is much higher signal that if I'd taken a quiz proving that I know solidity.
>
> I still very much appreciate you making this proposal and pushing for public goods funding that is not explicitly super nounish. I think this is important, and I'm glad we have others in the community who feel the same