0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,323·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 256, which is 0 for, 19 against and 2 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed):
Opposing views on the proposal:
1. I do not approve of its model. Spending $150,000 to create a rigid politically correct story for Nouns is a very bad sign. This proposal follows the traditional brand operation mindset of funding special groups and shaping their own brand image. Now NounsDAO funds an inspirational star who knows nothing about Nouns and has done nothing for Nouns, implanting a positive and optimistic brand spirit in everyone, which is an extremely rigid and inflexible brand strategy that does not fit with Nouns.
Noun's brand is a completely different model from previous brands; it is a headless brand where people feel the project's branding characteristics from community members' experiences. For the branding of Nouns, vivid stories or creatively concise memes should be used to enhance culture and build community consensus rather than funding a celebrity who has no understanding of Nouns. I strongly oppose the 256 proposal, which uses a solution that is fundamentally incompatible with both our thinking and operational methods to shape the Nouns brand.
2. The requirement for $150,000 in funding is too high.