0x6a024f52…80f4sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,405,438·view on Etherscan
moving-flows-forward:-a-sustainable-approach-to-public-goods-funding@0x6a02...80F4
I meant specifically that their (Nouns included) org culture is incapable of producing new revenue-generating projects. I do not mean to dunk on the culture or the community.
The results speak for themselves. Do we have any showcase projects that managed to bring in any relevant revenue outside the auctions?
The auction revenue is not a project per se, it's the whole thesis of Nounish DAOs for generating income, and it's [flawed by design](https://goldenlight.mirror.xyz/QMC9qUIAVWLVhCNlJo69Y9TKkCm9DvjNn9Q6qxK-cSM#heading-flaws). Just as [we see with Nouns](https://nouns.biz/graphs), Lil Nouns auction revenue is bound to go down indefinitely, so it's not a sustainable source of income, even if Nouns & Lils get some more runway out of the auction long tail.
The community is indeed very powerful, and it's the only reason Nouns & wider network are still relevant despite the forks, falling revenue & etc. We have what most other DAOs lack: a passionate community
What I'm saying is, if we want those DAOs to keep going, we've got to adjust the culture to one that can sustain itself. We can do it because passion is the most important component.
What we need on top of that is:
- a culture of collaboration. working together on the same project instead of letting a 1000 ephemeral flowers blossom
- a culture of peer pressure and accountability. clearly defined roles with a purpose and documented responsibilities
- a clear vision to align contributors towards the same purpose
We already have a huge community that loves Nouns and a ton of them are doing free things for the DAO just out of principle. We just need to leverage that energy into more productive, compounding efforts, and compensate those folks instead of compensating more external teams.
> We keep trying to patch the structure while neglecting the internal culture. None of the DAOs mentioned in this proposal has a culture capable of producing revenue-generating projects.
>
> Why do we have to delegate away the responsibility of generating revenue? This is something of a principal-agent problem:
> - Nouns funds external teams/DAOs to eventually bring in some flows
> - Most of them fail and just abandon the project. The team leaves Nouns bc there's no more funding. There's nobody left in the DAO with know-how of the project internals to pivot/repurpose it.
> - Some of them find sustainability, but now there's no incentive for them to stick with Nouns bc they don't need the funding. They go away and do their own thing.
>
> You're proposing we further delegate this responsibility to introduce another tier of principal-agent conflict. I'm highly skeptical that Revnets can fix those misaligned incentives.
>
> If we want to become sustainable, we've got to do things in-house.
> - we've got to fund the people who are here for the long term, not passers-by
> - we've got to develop our internal organization culture to support revenue-generating projects.
>
> We should invest more in wetware instead of hoping software saves us.
> - build trust between contributors
> - scale internal delegation of powers to afford efficiency
> - leverage the far-reaching network of Nouns to find opportunities
> - seize the opportunities internally
>
> Organizational culture has compounding returns. If we keep neglecting it and only investing outwards, the DAO will fade away.
>
> There's no point in deciding how Nouns will fund public goods if there's no plan for Nouns continuing to exist.
> Let Optimism, Gitcoin, EF do that for now...they have the funds and a sustainable flywheel.
>
> We can talk more about funding public goods when we figure out how to fund ourselves.