My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.”
Funding crypto regulatory advocacy is an excellent example of a public good. It is something that benefits the entire ecosystem, and it is something that many groups won’t fund. This funding is especially powerful coming from a more neutral organization like Nouns. Advocacy from VC funds and companies is excellent and their work is incredibly important, but Nouns serves a special role by decoupling its advocacy from direct financial interests. This advocacy also benefits Nouns and other DAOs, which lack significant amounts of regulatory clarity.
I understand concerns by Scott and others that regulatory advocacy is off-mission (https://twitter.com/scott_lew_is/status/1652699651265503233). Those concerns are thoughtful, and I agree that Nouns is not and should not be an advocacy organization for regulatory change. At the same time, I draw a strong distinction between funding advocacy and directly participating in advocacy. Funding advocacy in my mind is on-mission as a public good, but participating in advocacy is likely something that the existing advocacy groups can do far better than Nouns. As long as Nouns sticks to funding only, advocacy can be an effective public good.
That being said, I wish this proposal was stronger in its advocacy for Nouns PR. In my opinion, Nouns is not aggressive enough in advertising its donations, and that hinders it from attracting people and acting as a beacon for public goods. Claiming the top spot on the leaderboard is a good start, but I wish the proposal went further on advocating for Nouns publicity. A few things that I wish were addressed in the proposal:
- Nouns would be putting up 50% of the funding for the crypto advocacy round (Coinbase put up the other $100K, with the rest being direct donations from users), but the description on the Gitcoin Grants Round only states that “Coinbase is on a mission to advocate for digital asset policies here in the United States, and this crypto advocacy round will support the amazing organizations who are leading the charge.” I would love a commitment from Coinbase and/or Gitcoin to include Nouns in the description of the advocacy round if this proposal passes. Coinbase, Gitcoin, and Nouns are stronger together! This is a collaboration I’d love to see.
- I wish that Nouns had suggestions on how the advocacy organizations that will benefit from the matching funds could collaborate with Nouns. These don’t need to be requirements, merely suggestions. For example, welcoming advocacy organizations and their members to participate in the Nouns Playground and set a Nouns from the Playground as their PFP would set a nice norm, whether or not those groups choose to adopt it. (I also recognize that in this case, the amount is on the smaller side for that kind of PR.)
- The history of the Shield emoji and Coinbase is something that I wish the proposal clearly discussed. It’s worth noting that the Shield emoji is repurposed from the “Coinbase FUD protection squad” (https://twitter.com/lay2000lbs/status/1551956224232628224) and was previously used by Coinbase employees and supporters to signal support for Coinbase as a company. While there are only so many shield emoji available, it is relevant for Nouns voters to know that they’re participating in an initiative that is repurposing symbols that supported Coinbase as symbols to support the industry. I am perfectly fine with this, but the history is relevant as Nouns thinks about how much it benefits from branding here.
In short, while Nouns could do more to advocate for itself and get stronger PR benefits from this, I am in support of this proposal. Funding regulatory advocacy is a public good that benefits the ecosystem, and I believe it matches Nouns’s mission as long as Nouns sticks to funding only.
