just because last year the art competition was corrupted (where the winners were also part of the "curation committee") it doesn't mean that this year it must be the same. They said that this year the process was "open" for everyone, then why literally nobody knew about it? why the people who proposed the art this year are basically the winners of the previous year? In the #art channel of the NCD discord I haven't seen a single mention about this "open" contribution, the only thing I see is the same circle of 4-5 names asking to get paid like they are Picasso for picking and proposing their own traits to add.

Big compensations like this one should be paid only if these traits were selected in a FAIR and COMPETITIVE process and this is definitely not the case. In regards of some dumb takes that I saw in the other proposal like "they should get paid an insane amount of money so other artists will come and do the same!!" it really shows who cares about allocating the treasury in a fair and logical manner and who prefers to normalize corrupted procedures for personal gain and for the people close to them

bad precedent for price per head

This is onion, I voted no accidentally on the wrong proposal (my onchain vote was meant for the alien prop).

I meant to vote yes here, so I'll give my reason:

The compensation is certainly high. Mostly though I resonate with 4156's thinking on the previous proposal: "i think the price is also a little high, but in the absence of any competition, i think it’s good to pay the price to get people excited about competing in the future."

If Nouns DAO believes that art and culture and things like the Nouns traits themselves are important to our ecosystem, then we should set the precedent of compensating the individuals who push that forward well. The actual appearance of Nouns is perhaps one of the most important cultural elements of this world, and the prop submitters understand it very well.

Over the long term, I suspect that a market will emerge as people start permissionlessly submitting art requests more and more, and we'll arrive at what we think is a "fair value" for art submissions. But there is no such market that would drive down prices right now, so I think the premium is warranted if we want to express the idea that this work is valuable and incentivize others to participate in this work as well moving forward.

sent from voter.wtf

This is not a good use of that much capital.

sent from voter.wtf

Voting with same reason as Prop 348 - (I like the new art, the artist, and the initiative taken. Would I have preferred a proposal that was more community-driven? Yes sure, but none was put forth so here we are. My issue is with the price tag. Last year's Nouniversary additions were introduced through a competition, a prize. Different circumstance than we have ourselves in. Personally, I find it hard to justify 88 ETH.)

Artist have every right to put whatever price tag on their art, doesn’t mean it sells. I’d be a YES at a lower number.

Already voted "Yes" for 8/8 before seeing this. Would vote "No" as 88 ETH is an unsustainable cost, but choosing to "Abstain" given my previous vote. I would have preferred the cost have been included in the previous prop.