it's not clear from this proposal that this is a problem that needs solving. i'm in favor of keeping the threshold as-is until there's a compelling reason to change it.

Although I generally support reducing friction for builders, I don't believe that temporarily lowering the quorum is the correct approach. If nouns proliferate well and maintain the current price, we'll run into the exact same problem later.

Although well-intentioned, this only kicks the can down the road, where we should be looking for alternative solutions like autonomous proposals à la Compound / Uniswap.

can always vote to adjust again if things really start bussin

I think keeping the bar lower temporarily is a good idea, even more so now that the community will "fragment" into smaller subcommunities and it will naturally be a bit harder to find someone to help you put a prop on chain.

We are not overflowing with proposals to justify excluding so many nouners from putting up props.

Last time this type of proposal was made, except with an exaggerated time hook that ultimately distracted from the purpose of the prop, it was defeated... but I saw all brand new nouners voting Yes. In my opinion, that means that the 2 noun minimum is probably unnecessarily disenfranchising people who want to be active in the DAO. We don't yet have a problem with spam, and noun ownership is still a lofty bar (nobody is spending 50 ETH for the lulz), so I support lowering the threshold to 1 noun for now. This can always be revisited in future, if and when an over-concentration of low quality proposals becomes a problem.

I think it is much more likely that a good proposal will not make it on chain due to the threshold being 2, than a bad prop will make it on chain because the threshold is only 1.

likely means more proposals. which in turn mean more on-chain data to learn from. especially since nuking discord has already resulted in more reasoning on-chain.

⌐◨-◨: Nouncil votes No

(22 Yes, 35 No, 5 Abstain)

Discussion from Nouncil Discord
https://discord.gg/nouncil

JoshuaFisher
I’m fine with this but also Like the barrier being 2 because it is a self selecting benefit in terms of how much time do they spend in the community. If you can’t get 2 Nouns then maybe not ready to go on-chain imho.

JoelCares
A 1 Noun threshold to submit proposals for the first 1000 Nouns feel reasonable to me.

andreitr
The existing threshold is a feature that reduces noise.

fiveoceans_dev
I also, agree to keep the threshold growing. It will make smaller stake holders to work together and in turn help coordinate against potential malicious activities by individual big stake holders

kerimbonia
Also in agreement that lowering the threshold will introduce more noise and with all the changes going on in the nouns ecosystem i'm not sure this is the best time for it.

mintface.eth
I lean towards a single Noun so that proposals get seen and evaluated.
2 Nouns min creates a three party negotiation to take something on-chain. Two parties are then seen to 'endorse' or at a min be associated with proposer.
The idea of acquire a Noun and propose is cool.

CHEFFO ⌐◧-◧
i think that the current system is healthy and not needing a change

samellis ⌐◨-◨
Drop the threshold, good ideas will rise, especially with the changes of gas reimbursement and the more than likely time extension, why put an additional “pay to play” barrier. Let folks come in with their ideas.

Benbodhi
Only just over a year until it would increase again.
The barrier to entry to buy a noun is significant and the ability to submit a prop after purchasing a noun is something I feel should be possible.
I know delegation and sponsorship is a thing, but I’m thinking of lone actors.
Not sure it makes a huge difference in prop quality.

Toady_Hawk
I agree with reducing to one noun threshold. We don’t have a proposal spam problem yet (which is why this feature was baked in) so I think it makes sense to lower it to encourage more participation. Last time this was proposed (with a long time period attached that muddied the waters) it was all the brand new Nouners voting yes, which I think was telling. Keep in mind if spam ever became a problem, another proposal could easily raise the threshold again.

lil bk
all in favor of reducing the threshold to propose. entry of barrier to hold a noun is high as is.

there’s a total of 292 unique noun owners and thus don’t think spam would be an issue. instead, it’ll increase the overall probability to proliferate/propose in the first place. if my counting is correct, there theoretically is only 58 people who can propose as it stands (holding 2 nouns)

kerimbonia
i'm on the fence with this one but starting to lean towards yes the more we chat about it.
i def agree that anybody buying a noun should be able to put a proposal on-chain and that the cream of proposals will always rise to the top... that might sway my vote (no) concerning added noise to proposals and the additional time investment needed for voters/nouncil to discuss and filter through all of those to give each one the attention they deserve to get. i also think there is something very community about somebody with a noun having to reach out to another to get a proposal on-chain... anyways, still thinking about all this.

After careful consideration, we believe this is very #ugly

Proposals will have to be produced at a higher level as the Discord closes and this is a natural way to allow the community to expedite the process of figuring out quality vs. quantity for on-chain props <3

I think owning a single Noun should allow the ability to submit a proposal, for now at least. I like until Noun #1000 and think that’s a good time to revisit this. ⌐◨-◨

If people want to submit something but don't have two nouns, they can ask to be sponsored - this is something which has been very successful, in the past.

I feel like any Nouner should be able to propose to the rest of the protocol their idea on-chain and let the other nouners or delegates vote for or against it.

If Nouners don’t want to give the proposals attention that is their business as they have deployed capital into it.

Just having immediate access to one noun does not signal a bad idea, we can look at past proposals and see that is not the case.

Drop the threshold, invite ideas, and good ideas will rise to the top.