0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,949,339·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 257, which is 13 for, 19 against and 14 abstain, we choose to vote abstain.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed):
Opinions opposing this proposal:
1. The past three Nouns Fairs seemed to prioritize creating a lively atmosphere more than genuinely onboarding builders, and they did not showcase Nounish ideas and products born at hackathons (perhaps it's not apparent yet, as some builders might not have built products on the spot but developed ideas later).
2. Financial details are excessively indulgent: (1) the average cost of each fair is $38,438, while the bounty for rewarding builders is only $5,000, accounting for 13%, with the rest considered as marketing costs; there is too much budget allocation for marketing surrounding the Hackthon; (2) after three iterations, some aspects could be standardized and streamlined to avoid reinventing the wheel, such as reusing materials, resulting in instances of financial waste; (3) the costs for each event vary, but in planning, each is set the same; if the funds are not fully used, will they be returned to the treasury?
3. Data does not meet expected plans. The organizer's initial goal was 1,000 Twitter followers, but after the first event, the actual number was 580. After hosting three events, Nouns Amigos currently has 1,200 followers, with the growth rate gradually decreasing and an average of 300 new followers per event.
4. In Proposal 180, the team pledged to save funds, with excess funds to be returned to NounsDAO. However, this statement is removed in the current proposal, and after 36 hours of inquiring on Discord, there has still been no response. The team has made some changes in the crucial details of the proposal's financial aspect. It makes me feel that the team deliberately doesn't want to clarify the issue of financial waste, and I am concerned about whether the team might obtain undue benefits from the implementation.
Supporting views on the proposal:
1. The issue is not whether the proposal should be implemented, but rather its cost-effectiveness. Raising Nouns' influence at Ethglobal IRL hackthons is something that should be done, with cost-effectiveness being a secondary concern.
2. The team can establish a professional Web3 event standard operating procedure (SOP).
3. The team has a track record of three successful events. The current Twitter followers are 1,000+. The average cost per follower is $50,000/1,000, or $50 per user. The data performance is at least average.
Points of uncertainty include:
1. I have not been to ETHGlobal in Mexico, Bogota, or San Francisco, so I cannot understand the local atmosphere. Moreover, the most important aspect of offline marketing proposals is the specific implementation by the two members; we need to hear firsthand opinions from those who have interacted with them.
2. Although team have been able to execute events in the past, the team seems to have abandoned many original principles and become increasingly wasteful in the proposal, which makes me cautious.
3. NounsDAO proposals may exhibit a pattern of gradual governance attack. This starts with a few Small Grant deliveries, then bundles what should have been several small proposals into one large proposal, delivering low-quality results and pocketing the funds in between. This is an issue with the NounsDAO system. The NounsDAO system is imperfect, lacking supervision and feedback for long-term large proposals, as well as continuous incentives, potentially causing good actors to turn bad. Could Proposal 257 be an example of this gradual governance attack pattern? How can we solve this problem?
4. There are many conflicting thoughts regarding NounsDAO's financial scrutiny:
4.1 I believe that strict financial control will not yield good results, as financial systems need a mature community culture and relevant modules. Insisting on stringent requirements for any financial aspect in the absence of a solid foundation will do more harm than good to the system.
4.2 I think a 30% premium above the market rate is acceptable. Extra profit will make proposal deliveries more standardized and sustainable, reducing the sense of confusion and uncertainty for the implementing members on the cutting edge.
4.3 I can also understand the strict financial stance is resonable; if there is a 70% reduction in financial advocacy, then a 30% reduction in the financial budget may also be acceptable to the community. We should stick to strict financial discipline.