appreciate the effort put into this. i would like to see a version of this prop where the product is taken to completion. it seems to be a bit early in the development stage and it's unclear if nouncil even plans to use it (given some of the push back). otherwise i'm not against competition but i'd rather give more ETH to building the right thing vs a small grant for retro. please come back with more detail on this one

looks like they want you to collaborate - but you're here onchain with a proposal. shippors gonna ship ⌐◨-◨

I really appreciate that you’ve taken the initiative to work on building for Nouncil after years of everyone talking about taking it onchain, and even some earlier token experiments with soulbound tokens as membership and then using them as votes and such.

I feel like you should have shared more on your progress over time with everyone to give a clearer picture of how things have been happening over a long period.

I’m not against funding you for doing work. But I feel like it’s in your best interest to have Nouncil endorsement for a proposal like this, purely because it’s tooling specific to Nouncil and is proposed as such.

In saying that, I think an iteration of this could be useful for any groups that want to pool nouns and participate in onchain meta governance, so it doesn’t necessarily even have to be a Nouncil only thing.

Then I read the last bit about needing more nouns than Nouncillors to split voting, which I don’t believe is the case, and is actually a pretty important part of Nouncil being an onchain body, being able to vote proportionally based on percentage across all 3 options, giving every nouncillor a voice, not just the majority.

Also want to mention to @0x4b1d.eth that proposals are discussed every week on the Nouncil call, which are recorded and you can find the link in the discord links channel. There’s also prop discussion threads for every poll in the discord. So it’s not really mysterious. Nouncil is delegated nouns to vote with, we discuss proposals every week on a call, and async in the chats, record and publish the calls, Nouncillors vote on polls in the discord and a multisig crew puts the votes onchain based on the poll results. There’s also a Nouncil governance doc on GitHub (link also in the links channel) that explains things in a bit more detail. This is the way it works as it stands now, which is going to be a process of the past once tooling is in place to handle most of this onchain.

Anyway, in regards to this prop in question, I don’t feel comfortable saying “yeah, this is the iteration of what Nouncil needs and we should fund it” nor do I feel comfortable saying “thanks for your work and proactive approach, nouns should pay you for this work”.

I lean for, because I know how much energy and work has been put toward this. But without nouncilwide endorsement, I have to abstain. I do think you should be paid for your work. Maybe once we can try some onchain governance with it, I’d be more supportive.

I struggled with this vote. I hope it doesn’t come across as unsupportive. I’d even be willing to delegate my nouns for testing. But I think this proposal could be reworked and a different approach would be more successful overall.

I really appreciate that you’ve taken the initiative to work on building for Nouncil after years of everyone talking about taking it onchain, and even some earlier token experiments with soulbound tokens as membership and then using them as votes and such.

I feel like you should have shared more on your progress over time with everyone to give a clearer picture of how things have been happening over a long period.

I’m not against funding you for doing work. But I feel like it’s in your best interest to have Nouncil endorsement for a proposal like this, purely because it’s tooling specific to Nouncil and is proposed as such.

In saying that, I think an iteration of this could be useful for any groups that want to pool nouns and participate in onchain meta governance, so it doesn’t necessarily even have to be a Nouncil only thing.

Then I read the last bit about needing more nouns than Nouncillors to split voting, which I don’t believe is the case, and is actually a pretty important part of Nouncil being an onchain body, being able to vote proportionally based on percentage across all 3 options, giving every nouncillor a voice, not just the majority.

Also want to mention to @0x4b1d.eth that proposals are discussed every week on the Nouncil call, which are recorded and you can find the link in the discord links channel. There’s also prop discussion threads for every poll in the discord. So it’s not really mysterious. Nouncil is delegated nouns to vote with, we discuss proposals every week on a call, and async in the chats, record and publish the calls, Nouncillors vote on polls in the discord and a multisig crew puts the votes onchain based on the poll results. There’s also a Nouncil governance doc on GitHub (link also in the links channel) that explains things in a bit more detail. This is the way it works as it stands now, which is going to be a process of the past once tooling is in place to handle most of this onchain.

Anyway, in regards to this prop in question, I don’t feel comfortable saying “yeah, this is the iteration of what Nouncil needs and we should fund it” nor do I feel comfortable saying “thanks for your work and proactive approach, nouns should pay you for this work”.

I lean for, because I know how much energy and work has been put toward this. But without nouncilwide endorsement, I have to abstain. I do think you should be paid for your work. Maybe once we can try some onchain governance with it, I’d be more supportive.

I struggled with this vote. I hope it doesn’t come across as unsupportive. I’d even be willing to delegate my nouns for testing. But I think this proposal could be reworked and a different approach would be more successful overall.