0xc27bff1d…1a06sent to0x2a019853…277f·#16,854,211·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 241, which is 5 for, 18 against and 0 abstain, we choose to vote against.
The proposal's opinion is clear, and we do not recommend taking Rage Quit immediately. It's not just an issue with the content of the proposal itself, but also the caution regarding the level of the proposal.
Our opposing viewpoints:
1. Refuse to change the constitutional-level rules of the DAO without evidence that Rage Quit is effective (MolochDAO rarely uses Rage Quit) or sufficient community debate. Proposals of this level require lengthy debate, repeated proposals and opposition, and then approval. Changing the underlying rules lightly is irresponsible to the consensus. It is normal for a system to have human flaws at every level. However, a casual attitude towards underlying rules could destroy the Nouns system, a stable system is better than no system.
2. NounsDAO already has a secondary market exit method. Rage Quit is a term that appears powerful on the surface, but in essence, it is a bad price market-making way. It does not have the game-theoretical effect it promises.
3. The importance behind Rage Quit is not angry, but forking. The execution of this proposal did not enhance the system or generate more viable branches, but resulted in a loss of consensus, which is negative on the margin. Instead, leaving feedback for continuous improvement of the system can turn it into a way to enhance the system. The efficiency of Nouns proposal supervision has also been improving and will continue to progress.
4. The proposal implies that everyone is angry, which is a language game. The fact is that most users have a mixed feeling of disappointment and hope. Any one-sided release of hope or anger will damage a system.
5. Earlier proposal 192 had a more comprehensive rage quit design called theDAO Split mechanism/design. The proposer, Verbs team, pointed out that although it is still under discussion with legal counsel, they believe it is the best solution for Nouns. They are now soliciting community opinions and think it is very urgent to implement it as soon as possible.
The supporting viewpoints for this proposal are very simple:
1. Promote the equal vision of Nouns: Each Nouns subdao represents Nouns, and NounsDAO is just one branch. This is a more attractive future, a dynamic and ongoing future.