The role of admin may trigger concerns over conflict of interest. Pursuant to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8 (a), a lawyer shall not enter a business transaction with a client unless . . . the client is advised in writing to seek independent counsel and the client gives informed consent in writing to approve such transaction. Therefore, giving the anonymous nature of Nouns DAO, it’s almost impossible to gather informed consent from its members, I would suggest attorneys acting as compliance officers for Nouns DAO shall not participate in active DAO governance nor submit or sponsor any proposals.

Votes from the Nouniverse ⌐◨-◨

Every $NOGS holder now has a voice in deciding how the NOGS pool of Nouns votes on each Nouns proposal.

Cast your vote on your Noggles Dashboard, earn more $NOGS!

FOR: 623.04M $NOGS
AGAINST: 0M $NOGS

267120 $NOGS have been shared among the voters.

Agree. Let's test the current 'compliance signaling' format and propose changes if it doesn't work out.

The proposal primarily involves technical upgrades to the data contract for improved communication between DUNA administrators and DAO members. However, the proposal lacks specific financial return plans or clear impact metrics, and the key information is presented in a format that I cannot access, such as URLs or code snippets. Therefore, I must abstain from voting.

For - Wins

FOR - 35 VOTES

floofys | *"As a Nouncillor, I dislike the anonymity with which the voting takes place. So I will always provide a reason for my votes.

I'll be honest reading this one over and it all looks good to me. DUNA ME UP!

I'm Floofys and I approve this message."*

AGAINST - 1 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ExHDG9gQUaeXUXXtWh/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9523yps0dtrcoear855cpgsibhefjnpvc7k4swcbf0t&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

I like the idea of having the Duna Admins communication stored as an onchain record.

i’m a little on the fence about the admin compliance signaling feature. however, given that the same convention could be adopted using the admin communication channel, i ultimately think we should move ahead with the upgrade. we should always be conscious of the power given to admins if we adopt the social norm that every proposal needs a “compliant” stamp in order to get FOR votes. my personal preference would be that the absence of a veto from the veto admins serves as our signal that a proposal is compliant, except perhaps in cases of high-risk proposals where a legal opinion (etc.) is requested by the DAO

Looks good to me

FOR 178 VOTES

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAIN 0 VOTES