0xb875badb…3309sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#25,455,859·view on Etherscan
@0xc6a3...96E4
This proposal is a straightforward governance optimization regarding the backup DUNA admin role. It is not personal, nor is it a vendetta.
All of the information presented in this proposal is factual and not based on opinion. Please feel free to read it objectively and then let me know if you find any faults with the logic.
Let the merits of the architecture dictate the vote.
> it's inappropriate at best for a proposal of this nature to be put onchain given the proposer showed up in the past few months and is not a token-holder with skin in the game
>
> I've also personally been witness to and heard several accounts of the proposer/ sponsor and the groups they participate in slandering Satori's character, calling him a bitch and other names
>
> the proposal seems to be a personal vendetta of the sponsor, enacted through a third party by a particular biased context presented on hours-long Discord calls
>
> there are number of factors hurting Nouns as outlined in the Nouns is Dead candidate. some of it is the protocol design itself, some is the inability or unwillingness of large holders to coordinate with each other and with smaller token holders.
>
> the culture Lil Nouns & Nouncil have developed of viciously attacking anyone who doesn't spend 40 hours per week with them on Discord calls mocking other people, hating on large token holders and accusing anyone who is willing to work with them of being a grifter or extractor, accusing anyone who requests treasury funds for a new initiative of being an extractor despite these same people having been funded themselves several times over by Nouns and its subDAOs, is by far the most deleterious to the DAO and its members
>
> rather than taking action to innovate, create win-wins, and create new value, the rest of us are instead presented with impotent protest and facsimiles of action that either have no chance of passing before ever going onchain or are actively seeking to leverage the DAO to hurt other DAO members
>
> they say misery loves company, and unfortunately this group continues to try dragging the rest of us into their misery with them.
>
> ---
>
> "Sentiment is low, morale is lower, and the forums and calls that once felt like a shared project increasingly feel like a battlefield.
>
> Many long-time smaller holders now decline to engage at all with the newest cohort of large holders — and, in the experience of a great many contributors, those who do try to engage across that line, or who simply take an unpopular position, are met with pile-ons and personal attacks rather than argument.
>
> Some of the sharpest of that hostility has come from within organized blocs — Lil Nouners and Nouncil among them — and its effect has been an exodus of exactly the thoughtful, good-faith participants a healthy DAO most needs. This is the human mechanism behind the "small, fatigued core" above: it is not only that governance is tiring, it is that being here has become unpleasant, and enough capable people have concluded it is not worth the abuse.
>
> A DAO can, in principle, redesign a quorum or a reserve price; it cannot legislate its way back to trust once the culture has curdled this far."