For: 4 | Against: 2 | Abstain: 0

+for This narrative has been one of the strongest and most digestible proliferation tools in my time in Nouns. — @symbiotech.eth

+for being stoopid is nounish🤖🐔 — @brettdrawsstuff

+against giving nouns to folks with no proven track record of participating in governance. See my VWR for more details — @frog

+for We have a lot of Nouns in our treasury that don't have owners, it's time for them to find the right owner! — @0xishal

+for giving nouns to exceptional contributors is nounish — @0xmonografia

+against after reading Peter’s VWR, i wish i could change my Nouncil vote. +1 Peter’s deep thinking on the issue. the assumption from others that Nouns will always have eth coming in seems arrogant and is not supported by the auction history. Wag is unlikely to fund this forever, enjoy his money while it’s here — @wylin

via @zeroweight

I hear both sides. I'm all for builders and dedicated nouns folk being gifted nouns if we see them as long term players and good stewards of nouns/a vote.. But personally wish I saw some sort of actual signal they wanted these nouns aside from the proposer saying they do (did I miss something?). With that said, looks like this is about to pass, so congrats on your nouns guys- welcome to the dao!

The nouniverse has voted through $NOGS ⌐◨-◨

FOR: 24
AGAINST: 4

33600 $NOGS have been shared among the participants.

Not just awesome people, but truly committed to Nouns. Excited to build alongside you in this forever project. Welcome fellas!

Value alignment is the key to longterm strength as a community

Welcome to Nouns, and now, I present to you, the prize of infinite governance obligation!

Reiterating my pre-vote signal here:

Every time we gift treasury nouns to high quality, values-aligned rockstars like these 4 here, I see it as kind of like reverse cultural dilution… doing so either increases the value of the network overall and eventually that value accrues back to our individual tokens, or it doesn’t but we sure had a lot fun along the way. ⌐◨-◨

imo this proposal red-herringed itself with the governance comment.

By gifting Nouns to these individuals, we’re converting creators into co-owners of the thing they've been building
Let’s expand the pool of excellent contributors and then the rest will follow.

YOLO.

We should distribute all treasury ⌐◨-◨ post haste and the price to 100% meme value.

The goal of Nouns is not to get more people to buy Nouns. The goal of Nouns is to attract excellent contributors, whose contributions then encourage more people (both Nouners and people who aren’t Nouners yet) to buy Nouns.

Let’s expand the pool of excellent contributors and then the rest will follow.

More people who have done creative work for Nouns should hold Nouns.

By gifting Nouns to these individuals, we’re converting creators into co-owners of the thing they've been building.

"I had an idea for how to spread the word about Nouns, I put in the work to make it real, and the community not only funded me, but welcomed me as one of their own" is a powerful narrative! That's the kind of thing that makes people want to be a part of what we're doing here.

To me, this isn't about governance participation — it's about understanding that having Nouns in the hands of people who truly care about the project, who understand its potential and are committed to realizing it, is inherently valuable.

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

Nouncil has decided in favor of Prop 542: Gift Seth, Eric, Chris, & Neil Treasury Nouns, with 23 votes in support. Supporters highlighted the contributions of these individuals to the Nouns experiment and the importance of rapidly distributing Treasury Nouns to those who have successfully completed proposals. There is, however, a desire to find alternative means for distribution that do not rely solely on governance votes, as this can lead to voter fatigue. Despite some opposition and concerns about giving away Nouns, the majority believe this move will encourage ongoing engagement and participation within the community while recognizing the efforts of key contributors.

FOR - 23 VOTES

brettdrawsstuff | "🤖+🐔= ⌐◨-◨"

imwylin | *"i’m for the rapid distribution of treasury Nouns to individuals who have contributed to the experiment, especially through successfully completed proposals

that said, i hope a means other than governance is found to accomplish it. just doesn’t feel like the right forum and contributes to fatigue. really not stoked that $4.5 million has essentially been flushed down the drain with the sunsetting of prop house, the Reward the Builders rounds were a good start and could have been continued. $⌐◨-◨ may be an appropriate route once it is ready"*

benbodhi | "⌐◨-◨"

borg00000 | "gg looking forward to watching the doc"

AGAINST - 6 VOTES

peterpandam | "stop giving away nouns - voted onchain - peterpandam.eth"

ABSTAINS - 8 VOTES

Come for the Meme, stay for the Network.

I see people mentioning their reason to abstain or vote against being that these persons haven't participated in governance. I believe that owning a Noun incentivizes users to begin that journey of participation, as it did with me, which is why i'm voting for.

⌐◨-◨
I do hope to see these legends more involved in proposal discussions and voting. But regardless, I think they have done (and will continue to do) cool stuff for nouns and these rewards show appreciation for them taking that leap.

I generally see this as a token of appreciation and reward for long-term contributors. My hope is that it also raises the bar for general proposal output quality which adds "substance" to our forever project.

My wish - and this is where I agree with my fellow delegate mata - would be that proposers (especially) with large funding feel more compelled to participate in governance one way or the other: social commentary, zero weight, bts support, etc. but that's just a wish we don't want to require or enforce but rather cultivate.

We have many nouns in the treasury and not enough cool people. Giving nouns to early contributors with a culture fit and on top of their game is a good move imo.

great perspective

easiest yes ever gg on 69 & s/o song a day guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrUdKqpqvCc

First off, as a nouns governance maxi, i very much understand the sentiment put forward by others. But for me, distribution of nouns is not just a method of expanding our circle of voters. Treasury nouns can also be used as a token of appreciation and upside for people daring enough to take a bet on nouns in its early days.

We want amazing individuals to build with nouns instead of doing a million other things they can choose to do with their time. And carving out a path for past and future proposers, where doing an excellent job can mean unexpected rewards, i think will only strengthen the mythos of nouns and attract more of the type of people we want.

On a general note, i believe that at any stage of the project, people will be a much scarcer resource than both eth and tNouns. We should strive to convert the resources we have into those we dont.

I have no doubts that Seth, Eric, Chris, and Neil are great people, and I would welcome them to the DAO without any hesitation. However, their lack of activity in governance leads me to believe that this habit would not change.

Are we giving Nouns away in the hope that it encourages participation? The more we give Nouns to impressive people, the more we discourage impressive people from buying Nouns. We should do the opposite: reward those who purchase Nouns with funds from the treasury to promote Nouns to other impressive individuals. This would help create a phenomenal group of Nounish people within the DAO.

By giving Nouns to outwardly impressive individuals who are well-liked by DAO members, we imply that they should not pay for entry into the DAO, while less known or non-impressive people should. This practice lowers the book value of Nouns, which isn’t necessarily bad for loyal DAO members. However, it also diminishes the meme value and discourages potential buyers who do their due diligence.

Eventually, there will be a fork, and Nouners will face a tough decision. Some may choose to keep their Noun, but why should they? If the DAO values them, it seems they could get one for free while receiving some of their ETH back. If the DAO doesn’t value them, what incentive do they have to stay?

Why can't these individuals just buy a Noun at auction? I don’t understand why individuals who have received large amounts of funding can't purchase a Noun themselves. Is this really a financial issue, or are they simply not interested?

When prop 73 passed on June 7, 2022, it included a Noun as part of the ask. That day, the auction fetched 117 eth for that particular noun, more than double what 4 would be in today's auction.

This prop fulfills that promoise in prop 73 at a much lower cost to the DAO and provides a noun for all four principles involved in this production.

I'm truly looking forward to see the results of the past two years of the documentary production and am truly grateful I was able to be a part of the rose parade float creation.

I believe that rewards these 4 outstanding individuals is an amazing signal to top tier creatives and builders about how we want to bring them into the fold. We shouldn't judge individuals for not "buying" into the ecosystem and saying they won't participate in governance because they never really had the chance. Nouns is more than just the governance, it's about creating wonderful outcomes. However, by inviting these folks to participate, we can have both.

With over $2M in funding for past props*, and 0 signals/comments, nor a single Noun bought from auction among all four, I have my doubts about the significant impact their (potential) participation in governance would have.

Might be more inclined to vote in favor if this was a simple gift without any projections of benefits to the DAO, but under the current premise I’m against.

*This is not to disparage past contributions which were funded & rewarded by Nouns. And doesn’t imply that I think all $2M+ went to Seth, Eric, Chris, & Neil (much of it went to other contributing parties, or to OTG) - Just that with that much involvement, there being no visible interest in governance other that “choosing their Nouns” doesn’t inspire much hope for “significant impact”.

Their participation in governance will have a significant impact on our community
As I mentioned in my comment, there are plenty of ways to participate in governance without owning a noun, so I'd like to see genuine effort from these folks before assuming they are going to participate. Let actions speak. I don't think it makes sense to reward nouns to folks who have not shown an explicit interest in participating in governance.
If the recipient is not going to be participating in governance then it feels like there is more risk the recipient simply dumps the noun for profit. This increases supply and adds sell pressure in the market, which further drops the auction price. Dropping the auction price is obviously not good, since...
it increases likelihood of dishonest minority forks
we need auction to sustain funding proposals

Of course this proposal is only for 4 nouns and alone might not influence auction price that much, but I'm uncomfortable with the current cadence in which we are giving away treasury nouns, especially when the recipients have not shown much genuine interest in using the noun for it's intended purpose (gov).