FOR
🥌 hot.nounsesports.eth

ABSTAIN
🥌 0x32...d4f5
🥌 mrtn.eth

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

mentally flip flopping a bit here, cause its cool and interesting that mrtn and onnnnnnnion have been thinking deeply on this topic, and it's definitely better than what we have.

but i also was personally expecting a little bit more from the previous prop, and think the social layer still needs a lot of work first. idk tbh.

+1 krel

Sadly I cannot vote "for" for a proposal that it's lacking key pictures.
I do think propdates can be a crucial part of the Nouns ecosystem tho, and I think a further proposal comes along getting what's needed for it to succeed. Something that helps them get the proposers to actually use their platform. I don't think this proposal is that tho.

This is tough one for me partly bc i think its good for nouns to have onion/martin work on core contracts and mechanisms fulltime. But there is also a disconnect wrt why this is the problem to solve and spend time on that i failed to find a compelling answer to or build conviction around. Pains me to vote against.

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

The sentiment regarding this proposal was divided, and since the poll closed without reaching the vote threshold, we must abstain.

FOR - 12 VOTES

benjamin_____ | "the capabilities are generally in demand and I’m intrigued to read into the technical document.
I read this proposal to be deliverables based within an estimated 3months. 50ETH for 2 devs for 3 months sounds reasonable for a full time gig."

toady_hawk | "I think we need to lean harder into a culture of accountability, and financial consequences for a lack of accountability. It’s the only way to balance the chaos of permissionless funding, and I think integrating Streaming and milestone payment capabilities into Propdates is a good starting point in this direction."

AGAINST - 15 VOTES

peterpandam | "accountability on proposals is important and prop dates aspires to create that. humans need incentives but the better solution imo is to stop funding people that don't provide updates rather than rewarding them for doing what they should already be doing."

ABSTAINS - 4 VOTES

⌐◨-◨

The Amigos made a decision!

--

FOR - 4 VOTES

0xmonografia | *"In favor of integrating more mechanisms to increase accountability/compliance.

On the other hand, I believe these mechanisms should extend to the roots: proposals. I'd like to see proposals beyond a big <textarea> with a suggested transaction in the future – e.g., a dedicated section for budget breakdown, deliverables, timeframe, etc."*

AGAINST - 2 VOTES

atilioacm | "I think the scope should be more explanatory, three months of work and not including an audit seems to me to take away the weight of the work to be done."

ningunanube | "I believe having accountability and using stream of funds is important to get high quality/committed builders. My only problem is there’s not much clarity on the use of the rest of the funds and the cost of the audit (which will be needed). Also would like to know their thoughts on the art contest, at least a general idea. would totally vote for with more info on those topics"

ABSTAINS - 0 VOTES

(noun40 voting via agora)

ugh, i'm sorry i wasn't able to provide any feedback on this direction while it was in the candidate stage or discussion on farcaster stage. i'm very much on the same boat as wilson.

i think there's this view that only if we had used streams we'd have saved a lot of eth from grifts etc but i don't share that view. if it was then we would have built the voter social norm of shooting down props that don't use streams. the primary defense mechanism against props that might be scams have been to be very skeptical of props that are first time builders immediately asking for large sums of eth and asking to divide things into milestone and evaluate execution and alignment over a duration of time. we only scale in to a project when we have confidence that the bulider understands our culture & values and has a track record of delivering.

so i think this is a bit over engineering for a problem that might not exist or we might not have the consensus on. if we think streams is really an important norm we should build then we could easily enforce that if voters were convinced that that is a priority and if the standard streams we have right now doesn't cut it for some reason then we can think about adding different stream strategies or propdate requirements etc but personally as a voter i'm not convinced of the problem nor propdate required streams as the solution.

if we've come to this place from a perspective of like how can we get more props to use propdates then i wonder if we should put a carrot on it instead. more ppl will write propdates if more ppl read them and they have consequence. i've long felt that we should have some sort of quarterly nouns award for best props voted on (https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/nouns-retro-awards-ae65e700f3f8904ac1007d47a5309dd26f8146c0) and if having new propdates that quarter is a requirement to be entered into the pool of eligible props and that they become the basic information the voters read through to assess impact before casting their retro award votes that might be a positive reason for props to use propdates more and voters to read them more.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/497/votes

FOR 148 VOTES

0xADa31Add8450CA0422983B9a3103633b78938617 | *"LIL NOUNCIL HAS SPOKEN

Delegate to Lil Nouncil here -> https://lilnouns.wtf/delegate?to=lilnouncil.eth"*

0xae4705dC0816ee6d8a13F1C72780Ec5021915Fed | "☃️"

0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "Enhancing DAO accountability and elevating proposal quality are crucial steps towards achieving transparency and credibility."

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS 8 VOTES

0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "Would have been cool if the money unlocked with completion of propdate."

I don't think I agree with the problem as it is stated and I don't think we should try and push people to use streams, unless it makes absolute sense to do so.

But I do see value in this tooling for Nouns and beyond. I see value in increased accountability too of course.

It does feel like it may potentially stifle some proposals if a proposer is socially forced into a stream where increased funding may be needed during the proposal period (within total budget) but is inaccessible. Maybe this hypothetical is a non issue too.

Either way, I support propdates, I support innovating with streams. I don't necessarily support trying to force it on proposers. Optional and clearly presented as such, I like it.

I also worry about a subsequent auditing cost prop - have seen a wild range on audit costs, that tend to be pricer when the market is heating up since they're busier I guess.

Appreciate the builders here and there time in thinking on this, but I'm not sure I agree with either the diagnosis or the remedy. I am skeptical that

• The DAO should prioritize more props using streams
• The new features proposed would move the needle on stream adoption

If someone is intent on not putting in the work, it's easy enough to post a Propdate and phone it in. And I don't think the DAO will ever vote to cancel a stream, except maybe in extreme cases. Further, would have liked to have seen more delivered from the team from the last funding we did re Propdates work.

IMO the incentive around Propdates should be more positive than punitive. They should be celebrated, and we should look to further back teams that have done a good job posting.

GG, well played!

For - Wins

FOR - 1 VOTES

AGAINST - 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 0 VOTES

Big fan of the work being done by the Propdates team. The ETH grants space stands to benefit from this work. Looking forward to seeing proliferation through impact tracking.

Hey all, images glitched out, so I've cross posted them on Warpcast! https://warpcast.com/martin/0x1c42951a

+1 wylin

I am skeptical that this addresses the core problem. If the DAO continues to approve and fund proposals that opt not to utilize a stream as their payment method, the integration appears futile. Moreover, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't need to offer incentives for proposals to provide updates on projects funded by the DAO. In my view, the optimal solution is either disallowing lump sum payments or transitioning to a retro funding model..... I also would like to know ahead of time what the ballpark range would be for an audit since that is an additional cost for people to consider when voting on this proposal.

+1 to ccarrella.

when Coinbase flew me to Washington, that was the conversation I had with policy makers. "hey ag committee members, blockchain isn't just magic internet money. we could also put data from water/ air/ soil sensors on chain so that you can verify it's accuracy and make better grant funding decisions"

Voting against with the expectation and slight hope it passes anyways.

+1 d4f5. as a buider i like the mandatory update-to-claim and would gladly use it. if a builder is uncomfortable providing monthly updates to their funders, i have a hard time being comfortable funding them.

pushing the boundaries of the tech with the NFT claim and other strategies is a value add for Nouns.
(sidenote, have had a few dev friends hear about some of our contracts and say, "wow, Nouns is pushing the tech!" love it)

unsure about the costs, literally. whatever questions I have about developer salaries given my blue collar background, this Against is purely because it seems unreasonable to not include audit costs for a project with a 3 month deliverable timeline, and poor precedent to pass proposals of this nature with out the budget being fully scoped in the proposal

Fully supportive and +1 Chris ie scalability and generic solution to DAO governance.
To kickstart the social consensus, how can we incorporate additional incentives for builders to use this platform? What does the NFT provide them with VS the potential friction? In a way, how do we make it easier to use Currents?
Thank you for tackling this, love to see it and looking forward

not sure about price but does feel like a crucial thing.

always feels like high 90's % of funding should be via streams/currents

used to shill payouts-as-function-of-auction-price in early days and seems easy enough to do here. like equity opts.. or your friendly neighborhood mlm (why i sort of stopped talking about it lol)

ANYway
also interested to hear if builders don't like the mandatory update-to-claim...maybe the perfect amount of friction? sort of cements propdates as core protocol (not sure i'm using those terms correctly)

gl!

Streaming payments with withdrawals gated by on-chain project updates is a powerful crypto primitive that has the potential to be used by organizations outside of Nouns. In the event of massive success, every UN organization, foundation, and NGO could increase transparency with on-chain updates required to access their funds. However, this primitive is purpose-built for Nouns and combined with social consensus that we should favor streams, it can bring a lot of transparency and shared understanding to Nouns. It improves internal processes, creates a new crypto primitive, and has the potential to be a superlinear product.