Thank you to everyone for the kind words and support - it means a lot. We hope to make the community proud. Now back to building.

⌐◨-◨

glad to support this team as they push nouns into new arenas and adapt along the way. onwards and upwards fam.

I love rounds and would like to see rounds keep growing and more stuff like rounds. Rounds, Seneca, and the team ship and are very nounish. Strong yes.

I like rounds and want to do more with it.

sad to see prophouse go. happy to support rounds. good luck.

Nouns to the masses! Im down.

⌐◨-◨

For: 3 | Against: 4 | Abstain: 0

+against — @frog

+against — @bixbite

+against — @0xishal

+for doubling down on what works — @!212992

• for — @fattybuthappy

+against i’m not of the belief that Nouns has gotten a good price to value ratio on Prop House/ Rounds. pricing eth at $3k, the total capital outlay so far has been $4.5M, not including reward specific funding. even at $2M, blowing through capital this quickly should not be encouraged, nor would investors tolerate it — @wylin

+for +1 matas and also +1 noun40 for his fair and reasonable acknowledgement of both sides povs. — @indexcard.eth

Rounds.wtf has seen some amazing traction and it makes sense to double down at this point. I would like to see some development around long form submissions and other improvements and this seems like the quickest way to get there.

Seneca is one of the people who helped found this little project that we all love so much. After that, he could have done anything, anywhere for anyone.

But Instead, he has spent (from what I’ve seen) every waking moment thinking about how to make nouns better.

Building. Watching the meta. Pivoting. Being in the arena, trying things constantly.

Prop House was one of the best pieces of onchain software to come out of nouns, and Rounds was the natural, Farcaster-first evolution of that protocol. The integration with the social graph is just so OP.

Knowing that he and the team can’t focus on everything at once, Seneca made the difficult but ultimately correct decision to double down on Rounds, and we should support him on that bet however we can.

When communities are lining up at the door to use your tooling, you’re on to something (see: Agora.) Let’s keep funding the teams that are a big reason for our success so far.

Rounds is one of our big bets and we should let them cook!

The nouniverse has voted through $NOGS ⌐◨-◨

FOR: 21
AGAINST: 1

33600 $NOGS have been shared among the participants.

Go Seneca and Soli! ⌐◨-◨

i don't agree with the view that spending $2.3M on PH so far was overspending. we're trying to build the best internet scale meme machine. we're trying to convert eth raised to art, software, community, and more. what else besides PH (historically) and rounds (now) is truly attempting to achieve that ambitious goal of building the core grant infra for the internet scale meme machine? we've raised and spent over $50M so far and having spent $2.3M on the best bet that we have on that front doesn't seem like an over investment to me.

yes the PH team has had challenges. the biggest mistake was probably trying to go full onchain too early. they attempted to use skartnet as a rollup before that ecosystem was fully ready so that took a long long time to launch and then even after launch it had a lot of edge cases (like multisigs etc) that were harder to support and quickly iterate on. the nouns world was also changing faster than they could react (farcaster, base, etc) and ultimately they had to scrap the whole thing. a lot of soli & seneca's time that went into building PH the protocol on starknet was indeed a waste and that's sad but in the category of mistakes trying to go fully permissionless onchain too early is one i'm okay with. they also learned from that HARD and completely pivoted to a nimble farcaster lean-in experiment and iterate mode and in a matter of 6 months or so found the most promising thing we've seen in scaled meme machine funding so far.

i do hear lilforg's and sqx10's feedback / frustration and others also sharing that PH being sunset is disappointing. the reality on keeping PH alive as i've understand it is that it's hard b/c the permissionless (current) version is the onchain PH protocol version that is unweildy and the permissioned (old) version requires a lot of attention from seneca. we don't want that from seneca. we want him to sprint towards exploring this new product that's seeing signs of PMF. uplink is working on a product that can support the old PH use case it sounds like? that's a better outcome imo. in software it's hard for a different team to pick up someone else's product and iterate on that with passion.

also on lilfrog's point that rounds is just giving eth to existing large nouns players. i think what really gave me conviction that it's not that was /nouns-animations and /nouns-draws. the ppl posting there and earning there are many net new ppl. i'm seeing a vision of a thing where we can create channels for more contributions we want to incentivize and that creating a virtuous loop. on the /nouns channel i agree it can tend to feel that way. seneca has always excluded himself from the rounds. in the last 2-3 /nouns seneca started excluding me as well and i was supportive of that. maybe some way to scale down eth rewards for ppl with large farcaster followers so that rounds in general doesn't skew too heavily towards favoring ppl with too large followers would be good.

anyways, i'm just so so encouraged to see something that we've only dreamed of in the early days of nouns showing glimpses of real promise. internet scale meme machine LFG

I understand the hesitancy, but rounds is simply one of the (if not the) most interesting development within the DAO. In favor.

from /nounsfe:
For: 3 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 0

lunari: Wishing Prop House didn't need to sunset, (nounsfe was originally funded through a Prop House round, and NounsDAO props such as the Artist Program utilized the House in many useful, creative ways). With that said, jesscas calculated that the team would be being paid slightly above market rate, and with Rounds' reach/success, it is a Yes from me.

jesscas: Voting For, let's make sure the team has enough resources to get rounds to where we want it to be! I feel like it would be a little silly to have the rounds pass with 250 eth and not have a team to support that.

katalyyst: I think Rounds is a good way forward for growth in Nounish participation. I wouldn't mind support going in the way of rewarding the community for interacting with Web3 and Nouns!

Big supporter of Prop House (was an inaugural gardener myself). That said I largely concur with Lilfrog's sentiments, and would like to see them addressed. Abstaining here, but open to supporting a future version of the prop if it fails here and reasoning by team is provided.

Prop House did fantastic work and laid a valuable foundation for Rounds. Every team has learnings, especially in consumer-facing crypto. Supporting groups as they take their next steps forward to PMF is very important. In addition, Rounds is filling a gap (both in UX and in mechanism design) that doesn't have many similarities in the Nouns community yet.

I was a heavy Prop House user (via being a Nouns Gardener, helping Glitch set up their Prop House, and giving feedback to teams during mandated rounds when they reached out). Any product has some bugs, but they would fix them incredibly quickly (sometimes within hours, especially when close to the end of a round) and would point out workarounds if they didn't have a fix. The ZK mechanisms added complexity, but the design of Rounds is one of simplicity and operating on top of existing infrastructure. My experience with the team during their time on Prop House was top notch, and I view it as important to support them continuing their work on Rounds.

rounds is the biggest innovation we've seen in governance and grant distribution since the beginning of onchain governance and grants. we've found it to be the highest efficiency, ROI grant making mechanism that Base has ever used. the team is also relentless builders who ship ship ship. +1 from me.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/548/votes FOR 1 VOTES AGAINST 108 VOTES ABSTAINS 36 VOTES

For: 3 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 0

For

• 0xmonografia | "Solid progress, solid team. Even though current Rounds dynamics are different from PH's, they've proven to attract and reward more players while lowering voters' attention. Summer is approaching, and a new wave of builders will soon flow in mass—speeding up Rounds makes sense to welcome them. On the other hand, Prop House was excellent for kickstarting projects with greater expectations and more chances to keep building on them. I'd love to see Rounds or another team make room for that optimistic up-front funding model."
• ok_lex_ | "Small and medium grants are vital for Nouns. These are the first interactions for many builders to start creating with Nouns. This team is constantly giving solutions for this and if Rounds is the current solution to the present context, I think it's important to keep funding them (or a new member in this case)."

Had the chance to meet Seneca in person at Farcon this year, and I have never been more bullish on his/the entire team's ability to execute on this vision.

I really want to see Nouns take this opportunity to scale up the deployment of its treasury.

Please see my vote on Prop 546 to understand how I feel about Rounds.

Given the strong progress to date and the team's clear vision for the future, I believe this is one of the highest-ROI investments we can make as a community. Providing them with additional resources to grow the team and accelerate development is a no-brainer in my book.

↗ Sendit

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 against the proposal for additional resources for rounds.wtf development, with 22 votes opposing it. Members expressed concerns about the significant amount of funds already allocated to Prop House and rounds development, totaling approximately $4.5 million. They emphasized the need for an audit and a detailed breakdown of previous fund usage before committing more resources. While there is support for the concept and its positive impact on creators, the consensus was that transparency and accountability are crucial before further funding is approved.

FOR - 10 VOTES

borg00000 | "I've personally been paid probably ~$1000 via rounds and has encouraged me to pick up the pen and doodle more. I hear the issues wrt scaling, but curated eligible voters and single cast entry limit per week seems to be working at this small size, keen to see how this can scale with prize pools increased and new creators entering the fold. I love the self guided education this is kickstarting for participants and the near instant payouts allowing people to buy tools and improve their craft. Also hard to vote against something that has essentially bought me a new laptop."

benbodhi | "Big supporter of rounds and the team. This is a no brainer for me.⌐◨-◨"

AGAINST - 22 VOTES

imwylin | *"as previously stated, the amount given to prop.house/ round development in previous proposals totals to ~$4.5 million with eth priced at $3k.

will not vote yes on any amount of resources for rounds without an audit/ breakdown of the previous use of funds over the previous ~2 years."*

sqx.pcc | "-against"

ABSTAINS - 4 VOTES

Rounds has unlocked an incredible new primitive, unique to crypto, that rewards people for being valuable contributors to the public discourse. Double down on this.

Enjoy Ethereum.

⌐◨-◨

• "we should be comfortable investing more into the team" - krel.eth

I'd be much more interested in passing this proposal if it felt like a true investment. What do we get in return? Do we get equity? A portion of future revenue once rounds becomes self-sustaining? If the answer to both of these is no, then our relationship to rounds is really just as a customer of the product they are selling. And since our contract size is extremely outsized (nouns is funding it's entire development) it would make sense that nouns gets extreme preferential treatment wrt features we might want added. I'd be much more interested in a model in which the team is seeking funding in exchange for a stake in it's future success. This way, our incentives are aligned.

• "And even no response to my signaled no." -sqx10.eth

sqx10 and I both left pre-proposal feedback that was unaddressed before this proposal went on-chain. Whats the point of leaving pre-proposal feedback if it is going to be ignored? We aren't doomer trolls either -- both of us asked honest questions.

I want to see rounds succeed but I'm skeptical that the current mechanism is actually driving the outcomes we want to see. As it stands, it's rewarding the loudest and most visible voices in our community most. Yes, the long tail can now be rewarded too, but it feels like the same model as spotify where artists are actually frustrated by their inability to monetize much when the only monetization strategy is based on streams (in this case likes).

The team should have more runway -- I don't think it's existential if this prop does not pass. I'd like to see a more detailed report on the previous rounds so the DAO can more accurately assess if the rounds mechanism is actually accomplishing what we hope to accomplish. After the 250E is spent, we should be able to point out outcomes that feel like wins for our community. Then, it makes sense to me that we continue to fund rounds

Voting For based on:

• "Rounds is the first time we've been able to programmatically reward the long tail of Nouns contributors."
• Seneca (and team) is a pure force of energy -- it makes sense to bet on people who fights so hard to make something work
• Wrt timing of asking for more funds i think they did it correctly: Pivoted using existing runway -> found success with new product -> then asked to increase runway/scale up
• On that note, a team that spent years building and learning about a product space (PH, programatic rewards) before admitting defeat and taking those learnings to build a slightly different product but with the same end goal, is a great sign we should be comfortable investing more into the team, not less.

Big fan of @seneca's work. Yes, some expensive lessons learned, but this only only makes the team stronger.

I don't see any other Nounish projects that can distribute funds at the scale rounds.wtf is aiming for. Given the success of grassroots meme culture of Farcaster, I like the current direction a lot.

Have been happy with rounds so far but tons of room for improvement, and hopefully this budget will enable that. If you need more engineers, DM me on FC!

Generally in favor to further build out infrastructure in the pursuit of growing our own echo chamber.

current product roadmap makes sense to me considering the (current) momentum on farcaster.

it's now up to marketers, curators and community leads to (double down and further) integrate the tech for biggest impact.

As someone who used prop house a lot and got caught In The sunset. Lack of UX upgrades and usability there as well as rounds has been constant frustration for runners AND users.

Consistent lack of comms.

And even no response to my signaled no.

If this is what is expected from top paid top tier. Then I think we need to rethink where and how the funding is spent.

This is what fourth or fifth funding round. In the middle of a funding round.

PMF is debatable. On a long horizon.

Great ideas. Subpar execution. Endless money pot.

This one is a no-brainer for me.
The team has been doing a great job getting artist and content creators to push what is normally done in crypto.

I hope with this, the capacity of what they can output gets even bigger.

Big supporter of rounds and the team. This is a no brainer for me.

⌐◨-◨

Rounds are great for:

• Small ETH amounts and fast content creation
• Social feedback (understanding what people enjoy)
• Retro-reward competition style (build-first approach)

But Prophouse is better for complex projects that require planning, such as mini-games, websites, social campaigns, etc.

Rather than sunsetting Prophouse, why not reduce its scope to Nouns projects only, with a predefined calendar (e.g., every 3 months), so that it can run with little maintenance? One could imagine an automated Nouns onchain proposal reminder linking to each Prophouse submission with a 180-character TLDR to direct voters. In the future, $Nouns might also help us fight the fatigue of full-nouners.

It seems like the other community "houses" on PH ran with small amounts and asked for deliverables that could easily be transposed to rounds.wtf.

But when it comes to Nouns, I think we will miss an intermediary channel where one team can get 1-5 ETH to get started, either with a smaller project or an MVP that could secure a second round of funding via classic onchain proposals.

Devs, please come up with a proposal to maintain a more noun-centric, automated version of PH!

I trust Seneca to do an awesome job with rounds.wtf and look forward to using it again with Noundry

🫶 ⌐◨-◨