Whenever we are pushing boundaries to experiment and explore possibilities with infrastructure and governance, I’m leaning towards voting yes.

Blank end ;(

⌐◨-◨

Client incentives make sense & would be great. The team seems to have thought about this deeply which makes me comfortable voting for. Bringing market competition into building Nouns infrastructure like clients, based on objective measurements (but with the ability for Nouns to exclude any abusers) will make for a very interesting mini-ecosystem, which will hopefully spawn great things we usually wouldn't even think of.

The funding through spending approval is really interesting & seems like an upgrade by itself, I’m a fan.

while i think the idea of client incentives is interesting, I lack the context to vote yay on this and am choosing to abstain.

If there was previous discussion with the community that signaled that we would fund the audit and implement client incentives if it was developed, I would be persuaded to vote yay.

However, the fact that multiple clients for Nouns already exist, the main frontend is open source, and worst case the contracts can be interacted with directly, makes me wonder whether additional incentives would be worthwhile. It seems that without any additional incentives, a pretty robust ecosystem of clients already exists.

Further, it's already possible to deploy decentralized, unstoppable interfaces to IPFS. While there is some ongoing maintenance burden for these, I think the resources to fund that (if any additional resources are even required) would be much lower than the ongoing cost of client incentives.

All that said, i think client incentives has potential and am open to being convinced otherwise!

Im choosing to abstain. sorry gami! because I cant come up with a good enough reason to like it with the myriad of variables in play.

I am not voting against since most of the costs are already sunk in the analysis.

I like to compare this to the cost of maintenance on a front end? and Do front ends need another 1MM of support?

what I know.

• we have funded front ends to a large degree already. some i think with supposed maintenance fees in prop...
• this program is roughly $300k USD in cost. (including audit and verbs salary over 3 months)

variables:

• auction proceeds
• % rewards

what I think.

• adverse unknowns and new cliques will form. less diverse front ends but easy functionality to capture rewards. Nouncil // Arbers

• cool project idea. a little late imo. I dont see an influx of new competition. just disbursement to already operating front ends.

• Arbers most willing to take the bidding risk. so they capture bidder rewards.

• an added audit comp would be cool to have a community bug bounty as well. users tend to find the bugs fast.

Hey Elad and David! Thanks for setting up this prop. Aiming for as close to full decentralization as possible - and after nuking the Discord server - it's clear that the next step is to not rely solely on nouns.wtf anymore. Many of us already use alternative clients like Nouns Agora and Nouns Camp, but this experiment is a chance to create a competitive space that will attract builders to develop even better clients and claim rewards based on their usage. Can't wait to see where this takes us!

[ReVwR noun40]

(noun40 voting via agora)

very excited for client incentives! one way to think about nouns is as its own onchain world. that world has its own public infra that it depends upon. the nouns "clients" that allow for governance (proposals & votes) and auction bidding are some of those foundational things. historically we've funded these things on a series of yes/no prop decisions (like everything else). this is an experiment to see if we can do better. in this brave new world it's easier to track and verify usage. it allows us to decide on the budget we want to spend and let the market competition emerge around those public utilities. it's like if you allowed anyone to provide public transportation (e.g. buses) and the gov paid for verified usage! we don't yet know if this will be able to replace funding client teams entirely (likely should start as a incentive for good performance rather than an out right replacement of total funding) but it allows us to move in a new direction and experiment. if this works out it has the incredible promise of reducing governance burden (don't have to evaluate funding on a per team basis but rather a per category basis) and increasing market competition. excited for this! thank you to the verbs team for the hard work here.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/505/votes

FOR 68 VOTES

*0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "was torn. leaned yes last min. looks like a good experiment to offramp client production. "
0xADa31Add8450CA0422983B9a3103633b78938617 | "lil nouncil are active, delegate to us https://lilnouns.wtf/delegate?to=lilnouncil.eth"

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS 54 VOTES

0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "Lacks comprehensive risk analysis and fails to address potential long-term impacts on DAO's financial health and operational integrity."

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

Unfortunately the Nouncil poll failed to meet a threshold before closing. We had a spread vote as well, so no consensus was found in Nouncil and therefore, we abstain.

FOR - 11 VOTES

benbodhi | "Cool upgrade! I like the whole idea for client rewards and keeping onchain records of the frontends directing activity to the DAO.
Also interesting to approve the safe as a spender rather than withdraw the money. Illustrates more possibilities for teams to request funding in different ways where the DAO has more control when it makes sense to."

AGAINST - 9 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 7 VOTES

I like the experimentation around rewarding frontends that interact with Nouns. I think this will lead to some interesting insights and great frontends that are well supported.
Getting an audit also makes sense to me, more eyes/minds, less risk.

The Amigos made a decision!

--

FOR - 1 VOTES

AGAINST - 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 1 VOTES

This new feature PR has over 250 commits from the past year, naturally it will require a thorough audit. Yes good job!

One of the things I’ve found most challenging about Nouns up to this point is the multitude of half-built and often abandoned frontends. With no ongoing monetary benefit, it's easy for builders to drift away. Client incentives solve this, making each of them a part of the economic engine that is Nouns.

Let’s get an audit done.

PS: The experiment in funding (approving spend from the treasury instead of sending funds from the treasury) is fantastic.

This is a no brainer to me. Would love to see this pass.

Hell yes to client incentives and funding the audit. Appreciate this experiment in transactions with an approval to spend approach.