Really love what this is but feels like the cost to build could be lowered and it would still be amazing.

While I love the idea of an archive center for the Nouns ecosystem, the specifics of this extension do not seem to align with the demand.

It might be more effective to pursue a series of focused proposals that have clear and limited scope, and in the interim collaborate with the community to develop strategies to ensure that the archive captures as much media as possible.

Strongly echo Noun40 reasonings. Will provide full thoughts my newsletter tomorrow

feedback given in DMs

Poll failed to meet vote threshold.

FOR - 21 VOTES

fiveoceans_dev | "i like what the team accomplished. i feel that archives.wtf could be a great way to unboard new builders by goving them access to see everything that was build.

i hope the team woild put more efforts to keep the site updated.

also, I would loke the team to consider adding a feature.i think it would be great to add a page where all content is shown without any categories with pagination"

AGAINST - 19 VOTES

EltonPenguin | "That's a lot of money for not a lot of benefit"

Benbodhi | "Love the concept, love Voadz, but I think the budget for this is a bit high and could be achieved for less without it being so low that its not viable."

I agree with what has been said by others re traction and funding amount.

Grateful for the team's work here and hope they're not too discourage by this vote. It seems like between this and prop 240, there's a good bit of builder interest in making the Nouns Dataverse more organized, searchable, and permanent. I'm sure there's an exciting product to be built in this space, and I would be in favor of funding more exploration at a lower spend.

Looks like a little overkill on the team spend for what the app hopes to accomplish. I don't see hardly any traffic coming to the site, just a few individuals casually using it. Chop down the budget and the team and maybe it would be worth funding.

Against - 2 Wallets / 29M Votes
For - 5 Wallets / 25M Votes

i appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but i am voting against it because i feel the requested amount is too high for a project that hasn't yet demonstrated a strong product-market fit. although i acknowledge the importance of maintaining and developing archives.wtf, i believe a smaller team and a more modest budget would be a more prudent approach for this work, allowing it to progress incrementally and adapt as needed.

I appreciate what the team built here and I encourage them to keep building archives.wtf out for those who find value in it.

I question the utility of the site myself when I put myself in the shoes of an end-user. To be honest, I wouldn't use the site but it's totally possible that I'm not the target audience for it.

Good luck Voadz and team!

appreciate the team and the energy they put into launching the site but unfortunately my feeling is that this isn't yet something the community actually uses much yet. so rather than scaling the funding and doubling down on the current direction, I would rather support something smaller to explore product market fit.

for example, maybe the strongest need is not archiving everything in this schema but rather just to bring all the CC0 media to a imgur/flickr like site that you can easily search and find the image/video you're looking for? (according to the attached screenshots of ppl describing pain points that seems to be the strongest need)

Hillo

current engagement #s doesnt seem to indicate product market fit (yet), may need a smaller/scaled down prop or additional engagement on current site to justify

wen gnarchives?

Unfortunately the ask for this is too large for something that has gotten ~4,000 lifetime views - we don't think we should be paying $24k monthly to maintain something that is still unproven. A smaller prop with a small team would be great.

This is a fun and valuable project, but the amount of (financial) resources being allocated here is absurd. Archival is important, but I feel pretty strongly that a team could accomplish similar goals for a quarter of the price, without it feeling like an underpay.

I endorse this proposal because, although its primary goal is to deliver long-term advantages for Nouns, it also serves as an open-source public good that enables all on-chain organizations, both present and future, to effortlessly maintain their own archives. The project's impact is significantly magnified when adopted by numerous organizations. As demonstrated by Prop House, Nounish public goods not only provide essential infrastructure but also promote and disseminate our shared values and principles.

I like archives!

Tools like this are important but I'd personally need to see more evidence of PMF, or plans for how the tool is going to be marketed, before feeling comfortable funding at the requested amount. The current metrics on site views from the first version don't warrant this scale of follow-on funding (though I appreciate the team's transparency in providing that data for this proposal.

Something about archival and searchability of nounish media is interesting/useful, but the pieces don't quite come together for me here. There is probably a version of this prop that i would support though.

https://twitter.com/krel404/status/1650761375751237633?s=20