0xe10a136f…2b1esent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,262,544·view on Etherscan
@0xc6a3...96E4
Thank you for the clarification. As an external observer, I wasn’t fully aware of Nouncil’s internal decisions on proportional voting. I appreciate you providing this context—it helps clear up the misunderstanding. Looking forward to seeing how these discussions evolve. Thanks!
> @0xE10a...2b1E
>
> Nouncil voted to cast its votes proportionally back in February. to say it’s against Nouncil’s purpose and goals is counter to its own internal governance
>
> fair enough on the added risks of deposit vaults, however it’s a solution Verbs have considered for the Core Protocol of Nouns as explained in the first Mirror link
>
> > @0xc6a3...96E4
> >
> > Thank you for your response. While I appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I believe it undermines the fundamental role of Nouncil as a unified governance body.
> >
> > 1. **Nouncil’s Core Purpose is Unified Governance**:
> > Nouncil was created to act as a cohesive entity, representing delegated Nouns with a unified voice. This collective governance structure ensures that Nouncil can make clear, decisive contributions to Nouns DAO governance. Fragmenting voting power through liquid voting fundamentally erodes this collective purpose and weakens Nouncil’s ability to operate effectively.
> >
> > 2. **Liquid Voting is Unnecessary and Counterproductive**:
> > The introduction of liquid voting is at odds with Nouncil’s goals. It shifts focus from collective decision-making to individualized voting, diluting Nouncil’s influence and creating unnecessary complexity.
> >
> > 3. **Deposit Vaults Add Unnecessary Risks**:
> > Forcing Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into vaults undermines trust and introduces avoidable security risks. Nouncil’s current delegation mechanisms already allow ownership and voting rights to remain separate without these trade-offs.
> >
> > A simpler and more effective solution, such as a unified delegation contract, would preserve Nouncil’s role as a unified governance body while avoiding fragmentation and unnecessary risks. Nouncil’s collective strength lies in its ability to represent the community as one voice, and this principle should remain at the heart of any onchain Nouncil design.
> >
> > Thank you for considering this feedback.
> >
> > > @0xE10a...2b1E
> > >
> > > appreciate the feedback
> > >
> > > the core Nouns protocol does not allow for liquid, (ie proportionate or weighted-majority,) voting in delegation. these articles from the Verbs protocol team can explain it better than I can.
> > >
> > > https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/gnTdSqqiZC7OmqL8Dix-hEek5Sim1abC1BsZNm9_h-s
> > >
> > > https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/TP917T6vm6gXuVAxbQ34ZCn7dNiHabu3UW-ninwalVc
> > >
> > > unless and until the core protocol is changed to allow for NFT based voting, rather than wallet-based voting, deposit-vaults are, as far as we are aware, the only strategy to allow a voting body to split it's votes
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Although this proposal has already been canceled, I’d like to share my thoughts on the design.
> > > >
> > > > This protocol introduces a problematic design choice: requiring Nouns holders to transfer their NFTs into third-party-designed vaults. This fundamentally conflicts with the preferences of most Nouns holders. The current delegation mechanism works well by separating NFT ownership and voting rights without requiring holders to relinquish control of their assets. In contrast, this proposed protocol forces holders to give up ownership, a decision that could carry unacceptable risks. If issues arise, the developers would be unable to mitigate the potential fallout.
> > > >
> > > > A key concern is that the $⌐◧-◧ contract, which seems to inspire this protocol, has not yet been deployed or tested under real-world conditions. Without sufficient testing and risk evaluation, adopting such a system for governance introduces unnecessary vulnerabilities.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, if Nouncil adopts this design, I believe it would significantly reduce the willingness of delegators to assign their voting rights to Nouncil. Trust is essential in delegation, and this proposal undermines that trust by adding unnecessary risk and complexity.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I recognize the effort behind this proposal and the intention to innovate. I hope future designs will better align with the community's expectations by preserving NFT ownership while enabling secure and flexible governance. A more thoughtful approach could retain the strengths of the current delegation system while addressing any gaps with minimal risk.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>