0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,949,381·view on Etherscan
Imagine a world where voting does not exist. In this world, we would have no need for rules or principles. But in our world, voting is a reality. So we have a simple rule: we only vote against. We use a “Squad Vote” for each proposal. If more people vote against than vote for or abstain, we vote against on-chain. Otherwise, we abstain. This is our rule.
According to the “squad vote” result for proposal 258, which is 0 for, 30 against and 0 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed):
Opinions opposing this proposal:
1. This is not community building. It's merely Satori and Bixbite doing business with Nouns, a business that is not advantageous for Nouns.
2. Satori and Bixbite's remarks in the Jungle channel, such as "Lil Nouns is cheap so I gave them a cheap" and "Lil Nouns is a toxic environment," further convince me that they do not understand the spirit of the community. They display arrogance toward the individual community members, treating DAOs and communities as cold numbers. This is the worst and most repulsive proposal and proposers I have encountered.
3. NounsDAO needs to operate in a community-driven manner, incubating more teams that understand and love the Nounish spirit. Today, NounsDAO has many teams that both love Nouns and can produce outstanding work. Yet, W3BSTOCK only seeks to be an outsourcing team, proposing a disadvantageous business deal.
4. I will continue to oppose such activities that use exposure as a gimmick. The traditional growth model that relies on increased exposure is effective because it has a unified company and growth system behind it. However, the conversion rate of each aspect of this growth method would plummet in NounsDAO, rendering it ineffective. NounsDAO's growth engine comes from numerous small teams that love Nouns and have comprehensive capabilities, as well as the establishment of specific social relationships.
5. Nouns may no longer need this type of exposure.
Supporting views on the proposal:
1. A dedicated event organizer possesses sufficient professionalism.
2. They have participated in the Lilnouns community and observed the Nouns community. Although they mayn't to adapt, they have their own understanding of decentralized governance issues.
Points of uncertainty include:
1. Bitcoin has never rejected anyone. Conflicts between native and external teams can be observed in various projects. On one hand, I have seen cases where bringing in professionals to solve problems for projects ended poorly. Native teams must build every module from scratch, and there are no shortcuts. On the other hand, the MakerDAO model shows that, despite severe conflicts between native and external teams, they are not mutually exclusive at the protocol level. Instead, they should be embraced by the protocol.