To Krel, if we do this in current form, it will simply be 1M lost.

LFflow!

R&D funding on a new mechanism of governance is not cheap. I’m the continued development of this model. I’m curious on how projects will be measured for sustainability.

As an example I had my own funding and support prior to flows and flows was in addition, is that enough? Which is also questions why would I accept this money if I’m already close to sustainable?

While I have several challenges with this proposal, I ultimately believe that it is imperative that we continue to push forth funding, governance, cultural, and protocol level experiments in order to wayfind our way through the next evolution of this DAO -- COLLECTIVELY.

Challenges:
-Some of the flows were and/or are still inactive. How will this be dealt with in upcoming iterations of Flows?
-Accountability is key. How are flowcipients (lol) held accountable if they no longer participate or do not deliver their deliverables (if any )?
-How is project sustainability measured?
-$15k is rather low to ensure sustainability. How will you maximize this very minimal amount to spawn sustainability?? I would like to have seen lower pay for labor and more towards the flows themselves and then come back for retro.
-Flows is kinda ugly (UX/UI). What specifically is going to be worked on besides revnet (which in all of my internet years in DAOS and propping up funding experiments, I have rarely seen revnets work on and offchain. How do you propose approaching this big problem moving forward? The model youve showcase leaves me a bit skeptical. Also, Donors, curators and grantees may have different pathways using Flows, I think this would look better if those user personas were split up and their paths showcased individually.
-Lastly, I think the way flows works not can be a bit myopic. $83/month may pay for someone's grandma in the Amazon to feed pygmy pigs, I dont know that these micro payments can push toward real sustainability. It has yet to be seen from my perspective. I would love to see more resources in your ask pushed towards amplifying projects, hiring a part time community manager or socials person to elevate the stories that are being shred and propagated on Flows and to capture the stories sprouting up in Flows as well as the impact of Flows (if any).

Wish that the OG flows model, as exists today, was given a bit more of a chance with new grants flowing in and some real curation happening. It all seemed to be over as soon as it started, and now a full reset feels somewhat frustrating/a step backwards. We have 100s of creators left hanging which is disappointing.

+1 to the idea of working together, but unsure if we require flows.wtf in order to work together. Flows superpower was/is how frictionless getting a grant can be, and, from grantees POV Flows is obviously amazing because the onboarding IUX is ez (+ no DAO vote required). Good curation on the other hand is a lot of work + financial risk, and still unclear to me how/why people will be incentivised. Having heavily tested out Flows, I was still curating up until the end of last funding, and I guess I lost money in my final curation attempt... It is hard to convince people to put their personal money on the line to curate things on behalf of the DAO, hence nobody really did it. Also big UX gaps finding what to curate etc.

Still keen to see revnets in practice, need more clarity / simulations - NOC has been distributing $noc token to artists for ~1 year, how could this fit into revnets for e.g. is that even possible? Why were revnets not explored during last proposal, seems still many unknowns even now.

Also many people voting yes, but how many have actually used Flows as a grantee and/or curator for more than a couple of hours, if at all.

There’s still not a clear plan for how this new version of Flows will work or what’s actually different this time.

I don’t think Revnets are the unlock we’re hoping for, and getting real collaboration across that many teams feels like a big lift. I’d rather see a clear goal that everyone can work toward. Without direction, people usually just do their own thing and the value doesn’t make its way back to the whole.

Referencing to a tooling from the past, prop house which had the appeal to be used by more communities, grant programs, etc. but might have been too early. I’m not convinced that the timing is better now or that there is a wall to break through, but it seems like we’re pushing forward into something new.

Nouns should absolutely be funding experiments like this.

Flows is the kind of thing we should support: learning from what didn’t work, then moving toward sustainability and shared upside. Turning into a revenue-generating incubator for nounish projects is a win-win.

Let’s build!

⌐◨-◨

Big fan of Flows and grateful for the opportunity to create nounish videos through the funding I received. I believe in the platform and its concept, but I think Bix raises a valid concern: less than 15% of the total funding will actually go to creators/flows.

It shouldn't cost the DAO $90k to distribute $15k, the maths are not mathing. ⌐◨-◨

Bias but see value on small grants with real time accountability metric for deliverables

I was a builder in Flows, and I loved how easy it was for creators to report our progress.

If creators want to use flows AI tools, they should pay for them monthly via subscription plans. 

I don't see myself using $ATHLETES to attract donors/backers and promising them that they will generate some money.

We are still unsure of the exact specifics, but are sharing some potential models.

On this prop, you plan to revamp flows, and I don't like the direction of it. Flows.wtf is a great tool that needs human staff to supervise grantees as of right now.

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: 26.56M $NOGS
AGAINST: 0 $NOGS

139920 $NOGS have been shared among the voters.

FOR 4 VOTES

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAIN 81 VOTES

For - Wins FOR - 21 VOTES floofys | Floofys-For One of these has to get through eventually, right? creatressart | "lets give this new format a try, I like the pivot" AGAINST - 4 VOTES ABSTAINS - 9 VOTES

Let’s go with the flow.

Flows' pivot toward self-sustaining models aligns with crypto-native innovation—revnets could unlock new paths for grassroots builders while sharing upside back to Nouns DAO (min 10% token splits). Though framing it as "the only project" feels hyperbolic, experimentation here mirrors nounspace’s ethos: empower creators and sustain ecosystems through aligned incentives. Worth betting runway.

Flows helps nouns flow. Great program with a constantly evolving and passionate team

I'm in favor of more experimentation around funding methods. Crypto is all about innovation. We want newcomers to be enabled to build even if they don't have their own funds, otherwise we will lose a lot of potential talent.

I want to see this experiment go forward, as I think we can all learn from it.

Id gladly spend 1M on 10 hyper-determined teams each trying to fix Nouns in their own way. All wont work out, but maybe one of them actually manage to right the ship and change the trajectory of Nouns.

So while I also dont think Flows is the sole project capable of changing trajectory of Nouns, I do think its the correct mindset to have.

Im not sure Flows will succeed in their mission. Hard things are rarely certain. But I think those are the type of inwards-looking investments we should bet on and encourage.

Flows is one of the more unique concepts on Web3 that I routinely bring up to others to help pique the curiousity of others in Web3. From my observance and curation of the eSports flow, it has brought in multiple newcomers to web3 who are passionate and driven about their communities. I may not fully understand the potential token models being explored but I'm a believer that one of them will offer positive net gain with the right builders.

IMO, it is overzealous to state that this is the only project on the table to change the DAO's trajectory but I can appreciate the passion and urgency of the proposers. This new iteration of flows, in order for it to survive, needs to engage only with builders with similar drive and understanding of what flows is aiming to accomplish. We are working together to build community, proliferate Nouns, and ensure Nouns is here for the long term.

This is Flows' sink or swim moment, best of luck to the proposers!

Should have passed on the first try.

Frownish

We view Flows as the only project on the table with a chance to change the DAOs downward trajectory

appreciate the effort and passion behind this proposal, but I don’t agree with the framing that Flows is the only project capable of reversing the DAO’s trajectory. That view feels unnecessarily narrow and dismissive of the diversity and creativity that has defined Nouns from the start.

Sustainability is important—but so is experimentation, plurality, and letting many models coexist. The idea that we must fully pivot to commerce-driven “onchain Y Combinator” mechanics as the path forward doesn’t resonate with me.

Nouns has always been about more than just ROI. I support thoughtful evolution, but not under the assumption that everything else has failed or that this is our only hope.

Flows was life changing for me. Excited to see the new direction help builders start their goals, and bring revenue back to the DAO. Huge believer in Rocketman and hope to see this pass.