0x289715ff…c84fsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,198,694·view on Etherscan
@0x560D...79E6
re: streaming nouns after a lock period - this is on our roadmap - agreed.
re: complexity, idk how else to stress this but the UX of the site will really not change much from introduction of revnets/matching pools.
re: "'One builder's success is everyone's success' will lead to an imbalanced impact and discomfort from the best builders, disincentivizing them to improve when they benefit others." What rationale do you have that this will be the case? If there is a clear incentive for a builder to collaborate, grow the pie for everyone in the process, and still retain a large amount of upside themselves, it's a no brainer? Either way, it's much more preferable to what we have now where everyone fights over scraps of a fixed budget. That's zero sum. What we are proposing is not.
re: automated reports prevent builders from being accountable / self-aware of their impact. Builders are still expected to post valid grant updates and build in public and share their impact. If you don't make impact, you will be removed. If you visit a grant page, you can see what someone has built over time very clearly based on their Farcaster posts. The automation exists to help people organize. Ultimately they are still responsible for making impact, and they are absolutely accountable to it.
re: quadratically distributing revenue based on proven impact - this is exactly what we plan to experiment with via these matching pools - nice idea.
re: qualitative data - I talk to builders every day and respond to everyone + fix their problems, on the same page here.
re: little action from curators - there are many challenges from human curators every week, not sure what you mean. I agree we can do more to build an accountable system for humans to add their unique touch. We are working on it.
re: flows not being a good testing ground to grow out MVPs, what makes you say that? Nouns95 and many of these meetups/live music events/cleanups/gardens etc are all clear examples to me. I agree maybe we can help champion larger initiatives with larger budgets, but I think Flows is working beautifully to this end. Most of the builders would never have gotten any funding from Nouns, and now they have a foothold in the space to grow from.
> @0x6fB5...83b0
>
> This mimics the 'proof of work' mechanics we implemented at Nouns Amigos, incentivizing builders to execute successfully. It increased accountability and due diligence when reporting, and it would be great to include it.
>
> >
> >
> > What if grant recipients received a stream of equity into a Treasury Noun, vested alongside their USDC grant? The equity would follow the same vesting schedule, but it could only be claimed once their Flow has reached an average daily auction price of, say, 2 ETH.
> >
>
>
> @0x2897...c84F
>
> Agree on the level of complexity and that it doesn't change the competitive mindset. 'One builder's success is everyone's success' will lead to an imbalanced impact and discomfort from the best builders, disincentivizing them to improve when they benefit others. My gut says this would need some quadratic voting to distribute revenue based on proven impact. Also, while getting automated reports is convenient, it prevents them from being accountable and self-aware of their impact.
>
> > @0x6a02...80F4
> >
> > I hear you on complexity. One thing to note: the user experience won't change much. We're mainly adding two simple things—buying into revnets and opportunities to earn more through matching pools. All the complexity is managed in the backend.
> >
> > We're building a global co-op where everyone's rewarded for working together to fundraise and create positive impact.
> >
> > Revnets attract more funding than pure donations because:
> > 1. Contributors receive tokens instead of nothing.
> > 2. Every revnet is tied directly to the broader Flows network. Buying into one project helps the entire ecosystem grow, rather than just an isolated effort.
> >
> > Many of our projects qualify for external grants, mint content, or sell products. While revenue potential varies by category, revnets give every project a clear baseline product to raise funds effectively from the start.
> >
> > Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Trying to make sense of the proposed mechanism. That's a lot to digest.
> > >
> > > My gut reaction is against adding more complexity on top of an already very complex setup. I worry about how legible this will be to both Curators and Builders.
> > >
> > > Can you try your best to give a simple explainer, targeting the audience of Curators and Builders? How would you explain this system to someone with a basic understanding of crypto, or none at all?
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > From what I gathered reading the prop and skimming the revnets memo, its purpose is to distribute revenue between participants while aligning incentives. But those docs reference systems that have products with customers as a revenue stream.
> > >
> > > In the case of Flows, it would rely purely on donations, right?
> > >
> > > How would this system help Builders get more donations than they can already manage to get on their own?
> > >
> > > What incentives do Builders that get their own donations/ make their own sales have to distribute some of that with Flows instead of working on their own to keep all of it?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> @0x2897...c84F
>
> Well, that's the surface, and it only reflects an obvious need across the board: people need more income. I suggest getting qualitative data from builders/curators to make sense of the quantitative data.
>
> > @0x6a02...80F4
> >
> > Curator effectiveness (high signal funding) is different than growing the flows pie. I'll address both:
> >
> > The biggest feedback we've heard from builders over the last 6 months is: "how do I earn more money? why do I have to ask for votes to earn?". I don't agree that we can solve this problem manually asking for money more via props while the method we allocate capital (zero-sum beg for votes) remains the same. We need a tight feedback loop for builders to let them earn more on the ground while growing the pie for everyone. Also - this path has more incentive alignment and direct value accrual to nouns builders vs. having builders convince people to buy nouns then getting a prop passed to fund flows but not seeing your earnings grow - (flows builders are still buying nouns though).
> >
> > I don't necessarily agree the DAO should be taking "safe bets" given our current treasury trajectory, we should be bold with our proposals. I've talked to the revnet team extensively and thought through a ton of edge cases about the implementation. Still working on finding ways it can break / be simplified, but my conviction grows every week. Will work on simplifying the proposal to communicate the idea better.
> >
> > Re: metrics and giving more visibility into flows, agreed fully here. There's a good bit of action from curators, AI is just serving as a baseline safety net. Will work on dashboards and adjust the prop to reflect this. Also -
> > moving to revnets will grow incentives for curators to behave well.
> >
> > > @0x2897...c84F
> > >
> > > > increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
> > >
> > > I think increasing the flows budget is a simpler pathway to growing the pie right now, and a safer bet for the DAO. And there's already a pathway, although less explicit, for Builders to grow the pie: it's via proliferating Nouns and referring new people back to the DAO
> > >
> > > Flows is the best experiment for reliably doing good things in the world and realizing the purpose of the DAO I've seen yet. We should double down on it.
> > >
> > > But I don't think it's time to make considerable changes to the protocol. It has been operating for only 6 months, and this is too soon to get an accurate read on the current strategy.
> > >
> > > I'm also not confident we really know what's happening inside flows right now. We need better data and better dashboards.
> > >
> > > My feeling is we're overwhelmingly relying on AIs to oversee the whole operation, and I see little action from curators. I doubt that strategy works in the long term because as builders learn how to optimize those automated metrics they become meaningless (Goodhart's Law).
> > >
> > > I think before we step up the protocol, we need to establish a culture of due diligence and ensure we're funding the things we should be funding. Curators are the only sustainable way of keeping a high bar on the impact of funded builders, so we've got to ensure there are enough of them and that they're active.
> > >
> > > Can you share data on curator activity across all flows? I think we're missing that data, and it would tell us a lot about the current state of the protocol.
> > >
> > > important metrics:
> > > - curator diversity/vote concentration per flow
> > > - number of votes per flow
> > > - overall distribution of flow scores (histogram)
> > > - how many flows have been challenged. how many continued vs were cancelled
> > > - how is this data trending historically? are we consistently attracting more builders, more curators?
> > >
> > > I'm very supportive of Flows, but not convinced of the plan laid out in this proposal yet. That data might convince me.
> > >
> > >
> > > > @0x7f64...d6d2
> > > >
> > > > We've mostly seen builders collab / share resources when it's explicitly incentivized eg: in the Builder Kits flow. Outside of that, there's been competition because flows is zero sum, everyone is fighting over fixed budget / attention from nouners for votes.
> > > >
> > > > That's what we're trying to solve with this prop. The structure of flows doesn't incentivize anyone to work together, because there's no way to grow the pie. It's hard to get any quantitative data for you given that fact. I'll let @jango chime in on revnets in general
> > > >
> > > > re: increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > > > > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> > > >
> > > > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> > > >
> > > > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > > > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> @0x6a02...80F4
>
> "My feeling is we're overwhelmingly relying on AIs to oversee the whole operation, and I see little action from curators."
>
> Agree. Unless you perfect an unbiased and bullet-proof AI model to neutrally validate impact/success, getting input from real people is still needed. At Nouns Amigos, we introduced the Amigos Gardeners to validate (to a certain extent) that people were executing. This has worked well because a) their social credit score is on the line, b) funding is subject to successful milestones (think propdates), and c) the 'proof of work' mechanics to earn an AMIGO token (with voting rights). Having gardeners improved the use of funds with a 100% rate of certainty that the funds are well spent.
>
> > @0x2897...c84F
> >
> > > increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
> >
> > I think increasing the flows budget is a simpler pathway to growing the pie right now, and a safer bet for the DAO. And there's already a pathway, although less explicit, for Builders to grow the pie: it's via proliferating Nouns and referring new people back to the DAO
> >
> > Flows is the best experiment for reliably doing good things in the world and realizing the purpose of the DAO I've seen yet. We should double down on it.
> >
> > But I don't think it's time to make considerable changes to the protocol. It has been operating for only 6 months, and this is too soon to get an accurate read on the current strategy.
> >
> > I'm also not confident we really know what's happening inside flows right now. We need better data and better dashboards.
> >
> > My feeling is we're overwhelmingly relying on AIs to oversee the whole operation, and I see little action from curators. I doubt that strategy works in the long term because as builders learn how to optimize those automated metrics they become meaningless (Goodhart's Law).
> >
> > I think before we step up the protocol, we need to establish a culture of due diligence and ensure we're funding the things we should be funding. Curators are the only sustainable way of keeping a high bar on the impact of funded builders, so we've got to ensure there are enough of them and that they're active.
> >
> > Can you share data on curator activity across all flows? I think we're missing that data, and it would tell us a lot about the current state of the protocol.
> >
> > important metrics:
> > - curator diversity/vote concentration per flow
> > - number of votes per flow
> > - overall distribution of flow scores (histogram)
> > - how many flows have been challenged. how many continued vs were cancelled
> > - how is this data trending historically? are we consistently attracting more builders, more curators?
> >
> > I'm very supportive of Flows, but not convinced of the plan laid out in this proposal yet. That data might convince me.
> >
> >
> > > @0x7f64...d6d2
> > >
> > > We've mostly seen builders collab / share resources when it's explicitly incentivized eg: in the Builder Kits flow. Outside of that, there's been competition because flows is zero sum, everyone is fighting over fixed budget / attention from nouners for votes.
> > >
> > > That's what we're trying to solve with this prop. The structure of flows doesn't incentivize anyone to work together, because there's no way to grow the pie. It's hard to get any quantitative data for you given that fact. I'll let @jango chime in on revnets in general
> > >
> > > re: increasing flows budget, I'd love to. I think flows is easily the highest impact way for Nouns to spend money. Just unsure given current treasury size if people are willing to stomach more than $50k a month.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> > > >
> > > > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> > > >
> > > > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > > > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > "Builders earn revnet tokens and matching-pool bonuses when they put their revenue into the revnet tree. Launching a revnet will require splitting project tokens with the broader Flows network, ensuring continuous collective growth. Basically, builders put revenue into their revnets because it’s financially smarter to grow together, aligning everyone's incentives around collective success rather than isolated effort."
> > >
> > >
> > > - Any examples or evidence of similar behavior exhibited by any of the flows participants today? Actual hard numbers will be good to know. This currently feels hypothetical.
> > >
> > > - Ideally you would want to get a sliver of qualitative or even better quantitative data regarding demand for such, before introducing such a fundamental upgrade to the protocol.
> > >
> > > Given Nouns is main funding body for flows, currently its grant-making mechanism only utilised by Nouns.
> > > Why not just increase Flows operating budget (more than 40k$/month) in the interim while you prove out this demand.
>
> The premise of solving funding distribution at scale sounds excellent, but I'm afraid it works for repetitive, operational work. I'd wish to see it become a platform to kickstart fully fleshed experiments/PoCs/MVPs that could eventually grow. As of today, having a flow doesn't get you the 'proof of work' enough to then go on-chain, as some claim when pointing out people to start first with a flow.
>
> I'd prefer to see the current protocol fixed before considering revnets and scaling it.
>
Both are true imo: Flows needs to evolve to become positive sum and we need to improve the core system.
I hear you on improving the core protocol. We work on it every day, and it will remain an ongoing priority. Things like improving impact verification, curator tools, and other problems we've heard from builders always come first and we've been working on them for months.
I wrote this proposal to lay out an ambitious 8 month plan to get folks excited about new tech and to address the biggest problem I've felt living and breathing Flows every day. It's not my intention to suggest we are fully distracted from improving the core protocol. It is still a top priority.