Voting For now that the outcome of the prop is set. Wanted to answer a few more vwrs:

winnster:

The most urgent improvements in clients today are not actually new, big features imho, but rather seemingly small, incremental bugs that significantly subtracts from the user experience (i.e. button not responding, displaying the wrong proposal outcome, component not rendering). A natural tool for such funnel is encouraging ppl to open issues on the repo; another way is thru user feedback on Farcaster channels (perhaps a dedicated Camp channel?).

Thanks for this, full agreement. Generally we've been letting user feedback guide our prios so far, and the best way to do that is via Farcaster (we thought about opening a channel but sentiment seemed to be that it would be too fragmented rn). Not opposed to leveraging GH more! Be the change you want to see? :) Great to see you in nouns, winnster!

will:

One piece of feedback is that I would love to see an explicit goal around auction parity. In the prop, Camp mentions feature parity, but the daily auction is as important for newcomers as governance is for existing members.

Thanks for highlighting this -- weve been intentionally keeping auction/govt separate but would love to have a discussion around this and especially if there is monopolistic reasons we should not do both?

toady:

...belittle or downplay the efforts and achievements of other teams working on similar problems

Im sorry if this is how my message was interpreted, not my intention. To clarify, im extremely appreciative of the work done by agora and others, i only lament the fact they dont/cant spend 100% of resources of nouns today, for whatever reason that may be. I think both can be true and stand by that. (Also dont think Atrium/PH are fair comparisons here but appreciate the sentiment.)

yitong:
Thanks for added context and support! <3

FOR x 🥌
↳ sewerpipe.eth

ABSTAIN x 🥌
↳ 0x32d1...d4f5

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

I like camp a lot and I trust Krel and team to continue build something great here. I also think we need multiple robust governance front ends if we plan to deprecate nouns.wtf next year, and this one is fun and intuitive to use, so I’ll vote FOR to let them cook in 2024.

I do feel compelled to add a caveat though: I don’t think it is Nounish or necessary to belittle or downplay the efforts and achievements of other teams working on similar problems. Nouns should be about positive sum games first and foremost.

Yitong and the Agora team have given a lot of energy to Nouns in many different ways and I don’t think they should be punished in the court of nounish opinion because their products have also attracted other customers. Should Atrium never spend time on a non-Nouns animation? Should Prop House team not have spent time and energy onboarding Rug Radio and ApeCoin?

I disagree with the assertion that Agora scaling their solutions to also serve other organizations (and as a result, being in a position to serve the Nouns community with their client as a pure public good for the 6+ months since their last nouns mandate ran out) is a failure mode. I still use Agora often and have never gotten the impression that it wasn’t being supported. Yitong has always replied quickly to any questions I’ve had about the client. Also, he has been cohosting an Agora weekly proposal discussion space on TNS all year long, simply for the love of Nouns governance as far as I can tell. Anyway, I won’t belabor the point except to say that I think there is room for many teams to work on the many moving parts in Nouns, and we’ll get there faster if we share and cooperate, and eschew the zero sum.

looks like we going camping in 2024

Love the product and use it a lot. Confident the team's passion for nouns will drive the evolution of the front-end client in sync with the protocol.

+1 to 40's thoughtful reasoning

We shouldn't have a deprecated frontend be the primary way that users are accessing Nouns. This is particularly important for users who may be new to the Nouns community. We need the website to evolve alongside Nouns, and Nouns Camp is an excellent way to do so.

One piece of feedback is that I would love to see an explicit goal around auction parity. In the prop, Camp mentions feature parity, but the daily auction is as important for newcomers as governance is for existing members.

To deprecate Nouns.wtf properly and have a more decentralized approach, we need to properly resource a group like Camp. Camp is the best one to do so, and I have confidence that they'll rapidly execute on feature parity both on governance and on auctions.

sent from voter.wtf

As a first time voter, I have a relatively fresh perspective on the state of Nouns governance clients today. More than a platform that faciliates Nouners voting, a governance client is also an entryway for the public to consume onchain artifacts (voteWithReason + props) about Nouns culture and ongoing affairs. Governance client is one of the most high-leverage tools Nouns can fund to proliferate its culture and to encourage participation.

But why fund another client? Besides the reasons stated by other Nouners, client diversity is another one. Like how the Nouns protocol is secured by the underlying client diversity of Ethereum, we should have a similar safety net for frontend to improve accessibility. Sure, we can always vote directly on Etherscan, but that should be considered final resort. In fact, due to server errors, one of the four “non-canonical” clients is actually down for me this morning and this is when having additional clients to interact with the protocol is useful. While after a certain point redundancy is excessive, the current number of Nouns client seems fair for the value this DAO processes.

Like others, I have concerns about the scope of the work outlined in this proposal; however, I don’t think having an feature roadmap is necessarily the way forward. One feedback that I have for the Camp’s team and (governance clients in general) is that there needs to be a more direct and instant funnel for user feedback and feature requests. The most urgent improvements in clients today are not actually new, big features imho, but rather seemingly small, incremental bugs that significantly subtracts from the user experience (i.e. button not responding, displaying the wrong proposal outcome, component not rendering). A natural tool for such funnel is encouraging ppl to open issues on the repo; another way is thru user feedback on Farcaster channels (perhaps a dedicated Camp channel?).

Excited about the potential work on Camp!

⛺️

I would support a prop for 3 months (possibly 6) but a year long prop off the bat just doesn't seem prudent. We don't know what the activity will be or any other number of variables.

(noun40 voting via agora)

i think many ppl see nouns gov as this static thing when in reality it's something that moves quite quickly. candidate props, signal votes, forks, propdates, all of these things things didn't exist before v3. it's also not stopping there, the verbs team is soon going to begin work on nouns governor (that will enable things like nft-based delegation, not wallet-based delegation) and we'll need to migrate to that.

let's be clear. nouns.wtf is not being actively maintained (ripe did a great job adding v3 elements and it was critical for the fork mechanism but the candidate stuff doesn't work too well b/c it wasn't really iterated on as ppl started using the candidate stuff). we could find a separate team to pay $400k/year and let them lead nouns.wtf but that's problematic on two fronts a) foundation wants to reduce not increase control over governance infra, b) nouns.wtf as the "official" site has too much political meaning.

i think we've learned a lot funding different gov clients over the years. (my subjective read but it seems like) HoN started to get slowed down on product iteration by emphasizing support of other nouns communities and rocketman seems still very much interested in nouns conceptually but is working on an iteration of the nouns protocol (called revolution?). agora was amazing and i really commend them for launch supporting v3 changes immediately as well but the reality is that optimism, uniswap, ens, are larger daos that collectively take more of their attention and while yitong and charlie still are very much interested in nouns (esp yitong leading the protocol guild x the line animation work) product iteration has slowed considerably. i'd love for the agora team to come back for another round of funding with renewed commitment to accelerated nouns-focused product iteration and further create further alignment on branding but i've hoped for that prop for a while now and i'm not sure if it's coming.

what's unique about camp is that krel started building it out of this frustration. that while there existed some options (an increasingly deprecated "official" client and a slew of other clients that lost focus for one reason or another) none was really actively pushing our world forward (wilson with voter.wtf showed us that a gov client could really push forward gov culture—the vwr culture for example—but that stopped as wilson got busy with base). what's different about camp is that they are 100% focused on nouns and not just meeting the basic requirements focused but rather pushing the boundary focused. I think this is totally worth $400k / year for us.

over time as we experiment with client incentives and tweaking the parameters there I hope we can create a more recorded usage-driven, retro payment-based, market competition-like dynamic for gov client funding but that's not where we are now.

also i get ppl asking for more self-sustainability from different media generating props or props like nouns esports etc but camp is squarely focused on serving nouns gov (and that's their unique superpower we don't want them to lose) and unless we want them to somehow charge the gov participants i think the expectation should be more like gov contractors (companies that build software to run the city government or something like that). self-sustainability doesn't quite make sense here and i'm okay with camp being focused and dependent on nouns and nouns paying them for that focus.

super super excited for what the camp team can deliver with a 12 mo focus on nouns and very grateful that they've made such a (already demonstrated) commitment to do so. go camp!

I struggled with this for some time but have elected to vote Yes.

My first concern was that projects should "graduate" up to 12 month asks, and this was the first camp prop. I think this is largely invalidated by the months of successful work the Camp team has done and the adoption they have gained, even if they hadn't proposed it outright. In terms of adoption and quality of software/product released, I think Camp qualifies as "eligible for a 12 month ask".

My second concern was the limited scope of work outlined in the proposal. This is a larger question around the fidelity of the roadmaps we expect, and it varies from prop to prop. The way I'm thinking about this right now is the Nouns Foundation is going to sunset nouns.wtf at some point in the near future. Even after the emergence of alternative governance clients, nouns.wtf remains the "canonical" client. Without nouns.wtf, Nouns remains with a bunch of non-canonical clients, most of which are not funded or actively maintained - but people still need frontends so that they can engage onchain with auctions and governance.

Verbs is great, but focused on protocol/Solidity work. We have nobody actively funded to maintain work on frontends, and Camp is the highest usage frontend right now, which to me makes it clear that we should fund continuous work on Camp. But more than that, we also need to have a team that can adapt to the changing needs of the DAO. This time last year I don't think anybody expected us to have the whole fork situation, or know what the plan would be for DAO V3 etc, and for the coming year we know that Verbs will be working on important protocol work like the Nouns governor and such.

I think a 12 month "let them cook" prop is valid for this team, because they are slated to be the only team actively funded to maintain Nouns frontends, which will be needed in lieu of active maintenance on nouns.wtf which does not currently exist. While on surface it might seem like "500k for just another client" I think it's sort of misunderstood how important the clients are. I kind of see Obvious, Inc. as a counterpart to Verbs; the former works on ongoing interface efforts and the latter works on ongoing protocol efforts. As Verbs expands the protocol, it makes sense that we have people we trust to execute well on interfaces for the protocol. Remember that nouns.wtf still does not display vote reasons.

I'm in favor of supporting gov clients and making sure they have the funding to be sustainable. It's clear that Nouns Camp has made an impact if more than 50% of all votes are cast from this client!

Given that there is a pluralism of usable gov clients and gov clients currently serve a smaller set of users, I think it makes sense to get more specific on what we're funding with this larger investment over 12 months.

• I'm strongly in favor of retrofunding good work; however, I would suggest that we separate retrofunding from proposals to spend toward future contributions.

• If we are to fund 12 months of work, then we should have a clearer roadmap, ideally broken down into milestones so that community can have a sense of when and what to expect.

• What is the ~cost to be sustainable? What is the ~cost ~timeline to build ABC features?

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/463/votes

FOR 15 VOTES
0x10deC36B4AC9d3b60490dFE2799881287d4a74cc | "I'll only vote on proposals that are proposed."
0xADa31Add8450CA0422983B9a3103633b78938617 | "Lil Nouncil says FOR"

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS 103 VOTES
0x63aa1670aBAF10b93a8fD9804eA304641Ec8aCE8 | "Until the implementation of autonomous voting for off-chain props, I vote abstain on Nouns props.
"
0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "I'll only vote on proposals that require explanations once the proposer attends our weekly calls to explain them."
0xeB0e6eCD0E78B0a84eCD9663a041F453C454a99D | "Sadly all Nouns is US based, but I guess we have to start from where it springs. ;)"
0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "up to now execution very good. unsure why another year of execution on THIS project is needed and cost seem hi. "

The Nouncil has spoken.

We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord https://discord.gg/fdjJpMeV6K. The calls are public and all are welcome!

You can find previous call recordings here: https://nouncil.notion.site/30328df718424f17a623859018497fc2?v=806b5234a2a34b619c3d5028bcd879f0&pvs=4

When it came to this proposal, a majority of voters were against, however, the poll closed without meeting the vote threshold, which means we must abstain.

FOR - 11 VOTES

benbodhi | "Camp has been my go to gov client for a while now. Happy to see a commitment to not only maintaining but evolving the interface for another year."

robotfishgirl | "Camp is my go-to gov client. The cost seems high at a glance, but it's a year-long mandate- I know there was some confusion about how open-ended it is, but I actually prefer open ended props with established projects like this. They're proven builders with a great project and need flexibility. Easy yes."

AGAINST - 17 VOTES

maty.eth | "nouns have already funded many different clients, and while they all had period of hype where everyone was excited and used that particular site, in the end the activity on all of them plummeted (dont have numbers, gut feeling). and while i enjoy using camp, it seems to me it is in this honeymoon period now, and i am not convinced its worth as much as is being asked (close to half a milion for yet another client)."

ABSTAINS - 5 VOTES

have been enthusiastic about krel since the newshades days

camp is great! nouns is a governance game & game ux matters.

probably more important than ux is that the game is actually interesting.

since i think nouns is mechanistically not currently a game most would care to play, i doubt that great ux (even w 10x current camp feature set) will drive much capital to the dao for the foreseeable future.

so i do ultimately think these may be sunk costs unless we manage to dramatically correct course in the next year.

still, may well be true best way to make it interesting is to empty reserves; no issue with krel being a beneficiary of that process since these efforts are clearly good-faith and will produce some near-term value for the current group

shaking out neutralish i spose

I trust krel 1000% in skill, knowledge and love of Nouns, and overall great intentions. To me this prop is about giving krel and his partners a chance to show us what they've got, and I'm super excited for that.

I believe nouns.wtf should stop functioning as a nouns client ASAP, for multiple reasons (e.g. tech debt, wanting to remove dependencies on the foundation, wanting to see client innovation, and more); allowing Camp to go all in is an important step in that direction.

As for client incentives, it's too early to assume it'll solve all our client funding needs. Until we see it running in production for a while, the right move IMO is to continue funding clients as if it's not coming.

As for financial concerns raised in other votes, they are valid concerns! I think it would be great to have more offchain conversations about it.

AAA team with specific knowledge about Nouns that is impossible to outsource. They spent nearly 6 months working towards client parity which is an enormous amount of work that shouldn't be understated. Camp is building the future for how people will participate in Nouns governance and potentially even the wider crypto industry.

im supportive of funding this team but not on these terms. like other builders in the past, would support a shorter term prop to start. a 12 month proposal with only two sentences describing what will be worked on doesn't feel appropriate.

imo no governance client/front end has come close to nouns.wtf in terms of aesthetics and visual clarity, the only thing missing there is vote with reason and i think voter.wtf has handled that aspect best.

feel like we should be working towards rewarding/funding usage based front ends and this is the complete opposite direction with a long time commitment.

also unsure of potential future main governance client being (closed source?) and owned by a VC backed company that potentially doesn't have the same interests/priorities as the DAO

I think that krel and the camp team are doing awesome work. At the same time, I don't think it's sustainable that we fund $500k for this and all the other governance clients.

I would like to understand the team's path to some level of sustainability and/or their perspective on the governance referrals proposal. Ideally we move towards a world where clients are rewarded based on a metaframework that we've established (e.g. referrals) rather than one-off evaluations. Given our increased budget sensitivity, I think that time should be now.

$500k and a Noun for another governance client? This is not sustainable or money well spent. This is a basic app whose entire functionality is covered by Nouns.wtf and that is nice to have if the cost were cheap but is no way integral to Nouns governance nor is it adding long term network value.

The cost for the work is also and it's impression is also way off. $500k is a material amount for a startup with which they'd expect to do things that drive value to their project or network. Camp is very basic and if that is all Nouns gets for allocating $500k in capital, we're not going to have any capital to allocate in the long term.

Double down on winners. I expressed my appreciation for camp on farcaster a week ago, truly a great client. It's a big ask, but I'm confortable knowing Krel is leading the effort, whom I know to have Nouns best interest at heart and will push the envelope of clients for Nouns. (voted on nouns.camp <3)

Governance is at the core of what makes the Nouns world function. Just as Nouns deserves best-in-class engineers working on the underlying protocol, it also deserves top tier talent working FT at the client level. Easy yes!

I'm a Camp DAU, visiting it multiple times a day. There is not another onchain application I visit as often. As a result, it has increased my engagement with Nouns and understanding of the current and shifting Meta. I'm excited to see what this team can do working full-time for the entirety of 2024. This is another innovative Nouns product that I can imagine being adopted by many onchain organizations in near future.

I am very impressed by the team's commitment to delivering the best government client without asking for upfront funding. The client is robust and pleasant to use. The team delivered a lot of features. I also like that camp is going to be an open source.

Knowing that the client is full open source and trying to rethink the way people submit and review proposals is a big deal. We should never stop spending on ways to improve open governance, we will be the standard that people use in the future. So let's make it great!

Camp has quickly become my top client, the first to draw me away from nouns.wtf. The development team is clearly exceptional. Wishing them the best!