I think this has a high potential of reaching an audience that is unfamiliar with crypto/web3 that would find Nouns as special as we do. In addition, the show being presented for 3 years provides a lot of opportunity for new users to be onboarded. 2lang is highly motivated to collaborate and have Nouns be involved to some degree during the creative process which could open many doors.

If this prop doesn't pass, I highly encourage 2lang to continue being curious with Crypto, Web3, and the Nounsverse. Opportunities may arise where you may think there were none.

If you are thinking of revising the prop, heres a few ideas to potentially make it stronger (remember this is just one opinion, you can certainly reach out to others for theirs):

• Some degree of profit-sharing. I understand that this may not be possible. However, if crypto becomes more popular, instead of high credit card fees, there can be a lower fee that puts money towards Nouns.

• The script and production details could be publicized for other theaters to put on which aligns well with the organization. Nouns are open-source and are released under a Creative Commons CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license. This means that anyone can use the Nouns name and imagery to create anything, as it’s in the public domain.

• View proposals as a form of contract when writing.

• Brainstorm a fun way that people could be on-boarded into web3 or Nouns, either pre/during/post show

The two times I’ve heard this projects pitched in Nouncil it made me extremely bullish…. I honestly think it just did not translate that well into prop format. I know you mentioned in the comments not wanting to include this parts in the formal proposal but I think those parts that were discussed in Nouncil are the most Nounish parts. I would suggest if the proposal doesn’t pass this time around to revise (add in more details about exactly how Nouns will be integrated) and repropose

I think this has a high potential of reaching an audience that is unfamiliar with crypto/web3 that would find Nouns as special as we do. In addition, the show being presented for 3 years provides a lot of opportunity for new users to be onboarded. 2lang is highly motivated to collaborate and have Nouns be involved to some degree during the creative process which could open many doors.

If this prop doesn't pass, I highly encourage 2lang to continue being curious with Crypto, Web3, and the Nounsverse. Opportunities may arise where you may think there were none.

If you are thinking of revising the prop, heres a few ideas to potentially make it stronger (remember this is just one opinion, you can certainly reach out to others for theirs):

• Some degree of profit-sharing. I understand that this may not be possible. However, if crypto becomes more popular, instead of high credit card fees, there can be a lower fee that puts money towards Nouns.

• The script and production details could be publicized for other theaters to put on which aligns well with the organization. Nouns are open-source and are released under a Creative Commons CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license. This means that anyone can use the Nouns name and imagery to create anything, as it’s in the public domain.

• View proposals as a form of contract when writing.

• Brainstorm a fun way that people could be on-boarded into web3 or Nouns, either pre/during/post show

Thanks for the proposal and the teaser video, I liked it. Here's a summary I've had with a few other folks:

As others have mentioned, I don't think it's feasible that this prop onboard 200+ active members. We maybe have 100 active members as it stands, and that's fine. The best thing we could do is attract funding.

We should shift our goals away from "how do we onboard as many new members as possible" to "how can we ensure our treasury has enough consistent funding so we can continue to fund cool ideas".

Perhaps one path towards this goal is if nouns is okay with funding art for arts sake. In this case it doesn't really matter if your play onboards new members -- we would want to support it because we want to support the best art possible, regardless of how "nounish" it is. I actually think the play is better if there's absolutely no requirement that it focus on nouns. "Sponsored by nouns" would be enough. The idea would be that nouns gets some sort of social capital for having funded good art. I actually think the better approach in this case is not to have the play (or the art more generally) have to have noggles, or be about nouns, as then it has a better chance of having broad appeal and thus a higher chance nouns can start building social capital for being a purveyer of great art.

The argument then follows that by building brand / social capital for nouns through funding the best possible art, maybe we can attract larger donors who are willing to help fill our treasury because they like what we've funded and curated and would like to see nouns continue to serve that role.

Maybe like the a24 approach. Every film is not "a24 this, a24 that". The films themselves are not obsessively jamming a24 down your throat. Yet, they've become synonymous with a certain indie cool aesthetic in film such that people will seek out films just bc a24 produced it. Nouns could be the same. Not every piece of art needs to be SUPER NOUNISH and in fact it's probably better if they are not. Rather, over time nouns builds up social capital and a reputation for having funded great art such that if a new piece drops that is funded by nouns, our following of fans would want to see or appreciate the art sheerly because they trust our taste.

my 2c

Thanks for the proposal and the teaser video, I liked it. Here's a summary I've had with a few other folks:

As others have mentioned, I don't think it's feasible that this prop onboard 200+ active members. We maybe have 100 active members as it stands, and that's fine. The best thing we could do is attract funding.

We should shift our goals away from "how do we onboard as many new members as possible" to "how can we ensure our treasury has enough consistent funding so we can continue to fund cool ideas".

Perhaps one path towards this goal is if nouns is okay with funding art for arts sake. In this case it doesn't really matter if your play onboards new members -- we would want to support it because we want to support the best art possible, regardless of how "nounish" it is. I actually think the play is better if there's absolutely no requirement that it focus on nouns. "Sponsored by nouns" would be enough. The idea would be that nouns gets some sort of social capital for having funded good art. I actually think the better approach in this case is not to have the play (or the art more generally) have to have noggles, or be about nouns, as then it has a better chance of having broad appeal and thus a higher chance nouns can start building social capital for being a purveyer of great art.

The argument then follows that by building brand / social capital for nouns through funding the best possible art, maybe we can attract larger donors who are willing to help fill our treasury because they like what we've funded and curated and would like to see nouns continue to serve that role.

Maybe like the a24 approach. Every film is not "a24 this, a24 that". The films themselves are not obsessively jamming a24 down your throat. Yet, they've become synonymous with a certain indie cool aesthetic in film such that people will seek out films just bc a24 produced it. Nouns could be the same. Not every piece of art needs to be SUPER NOUNISH and in fact it's probably better if they are not. Rather, over time nouns builds up social capital and a reputation for having funded great art such that if a new piece drops that is funded by nouns, our following of fans would want to see or appreciate the art sheerly because they trust our taste.

my 2c

Thanks for the proposal and the teaser video, I liked it. Here's a summary I've had with a few other folks:

As others have mentioned, I don't think it's feasible that this prop onboard 200+ active members. We maybe have 100 active members as it stands, and that's fine. The best thing we could do is attract funding.

We should shift our goals away from "how do we onboard as many new members as possible" to "how can we ensure our treasury has enough consistent funding so we can continue to fund cool ideas".

Perhaps one path towards this goal is if nouns is okay with funding art for arts sake. In this case it doesn't really matter if your play onboards new members -- we would want to support it because we want to support the best art possible, regardless of how "nounish" it is. I actually think the play is better if there's absolutely no requirement that it focus on nouns. "Sponsored by nouns" would be enough. The idea would be that nouns gets some sort of social capital for having funded good art. I actually think the better approach in this case is not to have the play (or the art more generally) have to have noggles, or be about nouns, as then it has a better chance of having broad appeal and thus a higher chance nouns can start building social capital for being a purveyer of great art.

The argument then follows that by building brand / social capital for nouns through funding the best possible art, maybe we can attract larger donors who are willing to help fill our treasury because they like what we've funded and curated and would like to see nouns continue to serve that role.

Maybe like the a24 approach. Every film is not "a24 this, a24 that". The films themselves are not obsessively jamming a24 down your throat. Yet, they've become synonymous with a certain indie cool aesthetic in film such that people will seek out films just bc a24 produced it. Nouns could be the same. Not every piece of art needs to be SUPER NOUNISH and in fact it's probably better if they are not. Rather, over time nouns builds up social capital and a reputation for having funded great art such that if a new piece drops that is funded by nouns, our following of fans would want to see or appreciate the art sheerly because they trust our taste.

my 2c

Feeling like this one could turn out to be underwhelming like the Appcon mural because of the lack of specification on how exactly Nouns will be integrated.

The two times I’ve heard this projects pitched in Nouncil it made me extremely bullish…. I honestly think it just did not translate that well into prop format. I know you mentioned in the comments not wanting to include this parts in the formal proposal but I think those parts that were discussed in Nouncil are the most Nounish parts. I would suggest if the proposal doesn’t pass this time around to revise (add in more details about exactly how Nouns will be integrated) and repropose