0xae65e700…46c0sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,025,494·view on Etherscan
(continued from the previous vwr...)
i also just want to say that outside of the nothing nowhere entityless approach, DUNA is in my view one of the most cypherpunk legal entities we can choose. it allows the members to be anonymous (privacy for token holders). this alone already most legal entities where members have explicit rights are ruled out on. c-crops, LLCs, traditional non profits, etc all don't work. i would have personally rejected a legal entity where all DAO members would have to dox themselves. it also allows every token holder to have explicit voting rights as members of the nonprofit unincorporated association and their voting explicitly mean something that is incorporated in the bylaws of the entity. most other entity ideas i've heard reduce voting into a signaling exercise. the legal entity is not legally required honor the results of the vote. in DUNA token holders have explicit legally binding voting rights. if DUNA like many other legal entities reduced token voting to a snapshot like signaling exercise then i would have rejected that idea as well. DUNA allows our members to continue to be anonymous while their votes have explicit legal strength. it's pretty onchain maxi of us to insist on these properties. also this is one of the main answers to the "why now?" question. DUNA is something that just this year became possible.
of course it's not cypherpunk to introduce KYC to grant recipients. but this aspect is not even really related to the DUNA. it's not a DUNA specific thing or a US specific thing either. we're likely overdue on having this process in place and DUNA's explicit requirement around it is accelerating its introduction. the Ethereum Foundation has a KYC process. Arbitrum DAO has a KYC process. Optimism's token house grants have a KYC process. we just live in a world where giving out tens of millions of dollars in grant funding without collecting information about the recipients is not quite acceptable from a global financial regulation perspective. automatic payouts like bitcoin mining rewards, ethereum staking rewards, uniswap LP rewards are different. with those the protocol designer can credibly say that they are not directing funds in any particular way besides how it was transparently designed in the code. but a grant approval process where a small number of ppl can direct funds to specific recipients (like in the case of nouns where a small number of large voting bodies can pass a prop for someone to get funding) is different. there is legitimately more money laundering concerns associated with that type of activity and at our scale (we've given our $50m+) it's not quite tenable to say we're small and just haven't put together a process yet. i agree it's a hit to our cypherpunk ethos and a burden / overhead that we need to take on (i imagine us having something similar to [this](https://kyc.optimism.io/) that optimism has) but to me this one i don't really blame on DUNA b/c it's not really a unique to DUNA requirement and more of us catching up to the requirements of our scale of ambition and funding. however this is an aspect that gives me the most amount of heartburn in this proposed transition and i'd love to explore more nuances to our approach. can we only KYC grantees for certain sizes of funding rather than all recipients? can we take other social / onchain proofs instead of traditional KYC docs? we don't have good answers to these questions yet but i'd be very much in support of exploring them more thoroughly.
also there's a sense that this is all rushed and has been poorly communicated and i regret that. there's some efficiencies to having this all transition before year end but it's not a hard requirement imo and we could have taken it more slowly. also i was probably the best person to be the most communicative on farcaster and i've just been a bit drained... bitwise work being high demand + most of my nouns energy going to the foundation meetings / calls around DUNA considerations. i try to bring my best energy to nouns but it's been a bit tough last few months and i haven't had the energy/time to write out the above in full or reply to individual casts. 4156 tried his best (blog post, nouncil call, nouns town Q&A, TNS podcast interview, etc) but he's never been a strong reply guy and this community feeling likely moreso falls on me for not being a active communicator the past few months. happy to field more questions tho even after this prop passes. thanks for reading all of this!