0xfede2257…3b09sent to0x2a019853…277f·#17,962,821·view on Etherscan
We oppose this proposal due to the evident abuse of agenda-setting power during the “Nouns Fork“. It is operating under a facade of procedural justice. The current voting outcomes are a result of this abuse. We do not recognize the legitimacy of all previous community votes related to the Fork feature, as they violate procedural rules and only lead to increased uncertainty, division, and a breakdown of trust within NounsDAO.
This abuse manifests on two levels:
**1.Proposal 356 bundles multiple proposals together.**
Proposals 353, 354, and 356 combine two distinctly different topics and levels of importance. This raises the question: Should we, during significant constitutional reforms, bundle distinct and important proposals together for community discussion?
Treating the Fork and V3 other features as two separate proposals is essential. The Fork proposal is a constitutional-level reform, the focal point of community disagreements, as its outcome will directly alter Nouns' foundational incentive mechanisms and organizational structure. On the other hand, the V3 feature upgrade will change the interaction flow for governance participants.
Two proposals with distinctly different objectives are bundled together. One addresses fundamental changes to the underlying incentive system, fraught with significant contradictions; the other optimizes governance processes, which seems beneficial. Combining these two muddles the discourse around Proposal 356, preventing a clear and rational discussion of its pros and cons. For governance researchers, such mixed proposals are extremely frustrating. Garbage in, garbage out. This is one consequence of the abuse of agenda-setting power.
**2.More crucially, the NounsDAO Fork proposal bypassed the regular procedure and should not have been proposed by just one team.**
From its inception to its implementation, the Fork feature was emotionally driven, sidestepping the intended process. After Proposal 248's Rage Quit, a utopian voice emerged in the community, envisioning an infinitely forked NounsDAO future. Two emotional currents hastily pushed out the NounsDAO Fork feature, **bypassing the regular procedure.**
Now, it's evident that the hastily introduced mechanism has significant issues. It has attracted arbitrageurs, undermining foundational governance. On-chain data clearly supports this perspective. Since May, the number of Nouns holders has stagnated: 392 holders on May 1st and 392 on August 21st. Most Nouns in the past four months have been snagged by arbitrageurs.
**The current NounsDAO is under attack. It's evident that the Fork mechanism has serious issues, a fact supported by clear data, rather than sensationalized stories.**
Until a credible-neutrality solution emerges, terms like "decentralization," "adventurous spirit," "culture," and "global public goods movement" are just marketing narratives. We need to pause, revert the NounsDAO Fork feature to the research phase.
The right process should resemble Proposal 216: "Mandated Round: Private Voting Research Sprint". Engage multiple teams, foster innovation, and present diverse forking solutions. Instead, the Verb team, already overwhelmed, was pushed by community anxiety to offer an over-engineered Fork solution that arbitrageurs are now exploiting.
We are being forced to accept a flawed proposal and then debate and take sides. This is another consequence of agenda-setting power abuse.
Now, pro-fork arbitrageurs might have more than 100 votes, which is very risky. **We strongly urge all independent Nouners, not swayed by vested interests, to vote against Proposal 356 and follow these steps:**
1. **Reject Proposal 356. Propose a V3 upgrade without the Nouns Fork and proceed with regular upgrades.**
2. **Revert the Fork feature to the research phase, initiate a DAOFork Research Sprint, solicit research from various teams, and re-advance the proposal.**