0x1aa55a5f…bdacsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,090,978·view on Etherscan
The extent of the lies in this vwr is on a whole new level and for this one I won’t just sit here watching.
- You were the only sharkdao “admin” against prop 711. Even when the community told you that they wanted their vote executed, even when 3 of the other multisigners were ready to vote, even when the Sharkdao vote for our prop reached the highest turnover of those months.
You were not doing absolutely nothing in that DAO and many members were struggling to see SharkDAO dying out. Which is why there was so much excitement about our prop.
Which is why we released the governance frame for SharkDAO and why we’ve been committed to support it during this mandate.
- I shared with you the idea of creating a treasury of $nogs for your community because we were brainstorming that idea with other communities and I wanted to include esports too.
You said you didn’t have budget for that and after a month we came up with a new alternative, this time directly delegating 500M $nogs to your community without any purchase from the market.
We did it because you always told me you were excited to include the esports community into governance, and since we constantly try to support other communities we worked on that.
On March 13, while chatting about the Noggles Club initiative you said:
“Yes to all of this.
Will follow up about the quest design after talking with the team. But generally we've been having a lot of success with quests and I think it would lead a lot of gamers to the noggles app!
For merch you could just send us funds onchain, we could create custom discount codes which would reduce the price to $0 or just shipping, depending on your preference. We would want to make sure the code got to the right people though. Maybe could set up a unique one for each winner e.g. `NOGS1` through `NOGS10` for 10 winners”
And right after that, when chatting about the delegation initiative you said:
“Excited to participate in this! I think the structure the team was excited about would be having different tiers of allocations based on the users nouns.gg rank
So if we allocated to our two highest ranks, challengers and champions, we could create a distribution model between the two ranks.
I think we can tie this into the quests, meaning if they go and participate in voting with their NOGS delegation, they get rewarded with EXP on nouns.gg!”
That’s why I felt free to include this development in our propdate as we were working together on these ideas. To me, this is a synergy.
About the “inconsistent distribution”, no community treasury ever received $nogs, they’ve always been attached to the NFTs of the most active nounish DAOs, esports was not one of those. Which is why we tried to include you with the delegation program.
I’d better stop here. There have been some comments here that I found insane, but this is just the worst.
+1
> Had to sit on this prop for a while but ultimately decided to vote FOR due to the reasons outlined below.
>
> Here are a few points I want to address:
>
> SharkDAO has been largely inactive, yet the Prop 711 team managed to persuade a single member of our multisig (1/5 hotwallet) to vote FOR this proposal, despite SharkDAO having abstained from voting on almost every other proposal in the past year. Although the proposal passed via Snapshot, I personally don't believe SharkDAO should selectively vote based solely on individual multisig member interests. It should either vote consistently on all proposals or not at all. This selective voting subsequently appeared to influence 0xjanedoe's decision, as their VWR explicitly referenced SharkDAO’s engagement on the prop. I was disappointed with how hard the 711 team pushed SharkDAO and individual members to receive these votes.
>
> I find it odd that esports was mentioned in the propdate, given how sparse communication has been between our projects. After Prop 711 passed, I proactively reached out to their team to collaborate. However, their response was a suggestion for our esports team to purchase 7 ETH (1 billion NOGS) to set up a delegation program, which felt inappropriate since both our projects are funded by Nouns. Just nine days ago, they reached out again this time wanting to purchase our merch for the noggles club and proposing to delegate esports (and other communities) 500M NOGS each specifically to counter the "AGAINST EVERYTHING" voting block. So this is the extent of our collaboration and plans at the moment. We initially discussed potential collaboration back in April 2024, which ended with them saying "let me dive into the esports mint and create some ideas." However, no collaborative follow-up occurred for essentially nine months until after Prop 711 passed. Most interactions I've had with their team have been centered around requests for vote-related support on their proposals. All this being said, if the project continues receiving DAO backing, we (esports) will do our best to collaborate and support.
>
> I've always been uneasy about the inconsistent distribution model for NOGS. Some nounish communities have received tokens seemingly for free, while others have been required to pay. Still others appear to have been entirely overlooked.