0xdcf37d8a…7a19sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,119,619·view on Etherscan
@0x073f...2e63
Thanks for reiterating your concerns onchain. We talked through this in discord, but I’ll restate the thinking here for visibility and to leave an onchain record.
- Sponsorship requirement - There are plenty of people who will be willing to sponsor candidates, and there is nothing preventing nominees from sponsoring each other. Maximizing the number of nominees isn’t necessarily a benefit if it results in proposals with no realistic chance of passing. Requiring minimal backing helps the DAO focus attention on candidates with genuine support from the beginning. If this is a concern for the DAO as a whole the requirement can be removed, but nobody else raised an issue about this in our discussions.
- Voting and abstention expectations - It’s a pretty clear conflict of interest to have nominees voting for their own proposals and against others, campaigning against other nominees, and trying to influence and game vote outcomes via meta-governance. This should be an easy caveat to agree to for members who are taking their nominations seriously. If you want a truly fair election, all nominees should behave the same way the current admins will (and are required to per the ByLaws) and abstain from voting on nomination proposals or influencing outcomes via meta-governance.
- Stream cancellation - It is enforceable as you outlined and as we described in the proposal, via onchain proposals. The streams for the proposals will not start for ~10 days after voting concludes. Passed proposals which do not have the top 2 number of “For” votes are expected to cancel their streams. It would be a pretty bad look for nominees to not respect the process if it is ratified by the DAO. There will be no extra accounting or KYC work required, as there is plenty of time to ensure streams are canceled even if the nominee refuses, and prevent funds from being distributed.
>
>
> Multiple items on this proposal I disagree with including:
>
> - Candidates having to secure sponsorship from another Nouns holder..... this is going to drastically limit the amount of submissions we can have as Nouns holders can only sponsor one proposal at a time, unless they break up the Nouns in their wallet or split delegations to various different wallets which is a big inconvenience and headache right off the bat. We should want as many submissions as possible, not forcefully restricting the number of applicants based on available sponsorship opportunities.
>
> - Restricting voting: Nouns has been around for 4+ years and people are allowed to use their Nouns however they see fit... not sure why we believe now is a good time to restrict how people use their Nouns. If they want to vote for or against any onchain proposal they are allowed to do so.... also restricting how people vote in meta-governance is also over reaching. Whoever wins should win because the majority of the community believes they are the best for the position, not because they slide through because no one could vote against them.
>
> - Requiring proposers to cancel their stream if they also 'win' ... this is not enforceable by the DAO so say 6 proposals pass that will be 6 streams that start which also have to be KYC'd for ahead of time, with no enforceable action to cancel the stream without an onchain proposal.... see what a mess that creates for no reason? Thats also not including the extra accounting work it creates again for no reason.
>
> Overall this method does not allow for a fair and free election and I hope the rest of the community agrees.
>