0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,907,318·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 255, which is 1 for, 17 against and 6 abstain, we choose to vote against.The viewpoints of our different members are as follows (source not listed):
Opposing views on the proposal:
1. The community wallet product originated from a private social club similar to FWB, which is more suitable for closed community scenarios and not applicable to open Nouns. However, it may be adopted by subDAOs of Nouns.
2. Why should Nouns pay 120 ETH for an integrated service? The proposal for NounsWallet is different from Prop House and House Of Nouns' building products from scratch for Nouns. The product was not adopted in FWB, and now they are applying for funding in Nouns to do integration, which is extremely unreasonable. Nouns provides both users and funds to integrate a product service.
3. There is insufficient confidence in timely delivery of the product. This is PoolSuite team's first proposal at Noun. In the past, the team has delayed delivery of products such as https://grandleisure.org/.
Supporting views on the proposal:
1. The proposer of Proposal 255, PoolSuite, is a talented team with excellent aesthetics in their FM magazine products etc., even if there have been delays in delivery we are willing to wait for them to produce results.