https://youtu.be/ipsPgNEmAXI

I want to encourage the team to rework and resubmit based on the feedback.

As an onboarding and upstreaming platform for Nouns, SharkDAO has experienced the need for this type of service first hand and think it's worth experimenting with how to reward community members for this type of work.

This is a passionate group that has been successful so far and want to support the continued exploration.

Seneca: While I like the enthusiasm and appreciate the team's effort to put this forth, the proposed outcomes feel vague. If the end goal is to get builders funded - I'd much rather see the team pursue a small amount of funding to run their own grants program. This way, it is much easier to measure success while also allowing the team to find/consult with builders.

9999: The team is passionate and well placed to execute on this idea. I think it’s reasonable to get funds to test out a consultancy/incubator on a small scale, but I dislike subsidizing this entirely for 3 months when there’s an obvious business model. In general, I am for the consultancy model and believe it can bring qualified builders to the DAO. To that end, the market has the ability to signal whether the PropBox idea/team/approach works and funding to the extent requested would distort this process. In addition to reducing the timeline and funding amount, I would recommend voting for this proposal if it had target metrics: 1 month, interface with 10-15 builders, target 1-2 amazing on-chain proposal, include a “finders fee” to subsidize the funding gap.

devcarrot: I agree with the other Nounders that there should be a market for this type of advising that takes the form of a "finders fee" or "tip". I would like to see this proposal changed to either include more discrete objectives or, as Aubtoshi mentioned, expanded to be a source of earlier funding. During the Agora debate it was brought up that a place for builders and proposal authors are able to gain some clout, PropBox could be a way to incubate those with potential and build better proposals along the way.

full disclosure: i'm ugly.

one of the main reasons i decided to stick around the nouniverse after striking out with my first few prop house entries is the reception i received from the people on this team. they welcomed me into the community and invested in me as a builder by helping me work through my original proposal.

i'd never had an experience like that in a community before. and it made me want to dig in and keep building cool shit here. i don't know if i'd still be working in the nouniverse if it wasn't for this team.

i'm voting yes on this because i believe new (and old) builders will benefit from having this team focused and dedicated to guide them through the proposal process. which in turn will benefit the dao with better and more successful projects.

it's in this team's best interest to have the projects they touch become successful and accountable. and i know they'll go above and beyond to do that.

There is immense value in this proposal. The amount of people looking for help with creating/editing proposals is huge and the ecosystem will benefit from a skilled crew stewarding them. I personally haven’t had the time to help all the people that ask. So it will be great to have a place to send them.

Navigating prop creation and DAO governance isn't a core competency of most potential contributors. An effort like this should make DAO funding more accessible to competent builders.

Andrew, Prof Werder, Brad and Woody have been working hard for months to help builders on discord and discourse, and help them navigate the sometimes-labyrinthian corridors of Nouns DAO funding. Anyone who doesn't think there is a need for helpful, skilled people to empower would-be builders and plug them into nouns DAO ecosystem, I would argue probably do not spend much time on the front lines of the DAO. Because those who do, will have their DMs full of exactly these types of requests on a daily basis. I would like to see this team get funded and either prove the thesis wrong or right over the next quarter. If they are able to unlock the nounish potential of 30+ builders and get them funded by one of the funding sources within nouns, I think the outlay will be well worth the cost.

Abstaining due to being a member of UglyDAO who is not working on this specific prop. This is not saying prop builders should avoid voting on their own props, just personally want to steer 100% clear of any potential conflicts of interest in this specific instance

helping people know how to build on Nouns is nounish ⌐◧-◧

Nouncil is overall in favor of 175. Nouncillors voted 34 YES, 7 NO, and 2 ABSTAIN (using the new anonymous Discord voting powered by Nerman Bot.)

Some excerpts from the discussion thread:

"There should be multiple options for builders to choose as partners for their props. These things are our babies and we want them to be handled by people who share same values and care. If we don't have these options I think that we will drive away many ... the only people that have interacted with my requests for help there are the same people putting this prop together so I am all in to support this prop which I think will help so many" -Klim

"I have voted yes because I see this as a pilot and a building block for growth. The team includes some of the smartest, strongest communicators and most well meaning people in the ecosystem. I trust the intentions, durability and consistency of the team. " -Cheffo

"Prop discussion is a very valuable service that people in Nouncil have been providing without any clear reward in sight, and the people in this prop have all been actively providing prop feedback without compensation for months." -Joel

"This (reads) like a request to allocate 10 ETH with an overhead of 65 ETH to fund the team, which is roughly ~90% overhead" -Juan

I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to create an intermediary consulting team that tries to increase the quality of props.

In theory, there should be sufficient incentive for the proposers to already do that given the fact that they receive grant funding at the end. Gathering attention, community buy-in, writing a great proposal should all be a part of the proof-of-work required to get a prop passed.

Having said that, I'm all for making it easier to communicate your prop (by adding functionality to clients etc.)

https://twitter.com/0Hindsight/status/1597224514714505216?s=20&t=MpS_QmTZBFgfPegGk8VpLQ

• Can see this leading to a misalignment of incentives.
• Dont think a consultancy for proposals is needed when we have nouns.centre and discourse as well as NFSW and DCS etc
• It includes a 5eth retro reward and it looks like there will be a retro reward for the same thing by Nouncil (should have waited for clarity on that before posting)

I think this group of high potential and diverse builders will offer a warm but constructive landing place for builders to seek guidance and get personalized help to making a good prop idea great, helping it get proper attention and ultimately sponsoring it on chain.

https://twitter.com/niftynaut/status/1597235868888023041

I like the prop and the team. But have some issues with it:

1. no discourse, not open to feedback from the community.
2. not clear on payment: 20 eth/month for team “to be paid retroactively based on work completed and builders helped”. How is that measured? How much will the team get paid, who decides, and what is done with the money left over (if any)?
3. no transparency on how the 10 eth for builders will be distributed, how the decision process will be made and if anyone will be able to know about it.
4. the “5 eth of retro funding for what has been done to build this system already” - what is this for exactly? The network? Who is getting paid?
   Not being scalable is not really an issue for me as I think this can stay at the same size and be helpful. For a prop that talks so much about feedback, I’m surprised none was asked. So I’d welcome this prop again, after it had gathered feedback on these and other issues from the community.

Not sure this does anything more to promote nouns. Nothing stoping folks from asking the community to engage and get better proposal crafting completed.

I struggled with this prop. While I love the team, I don't believe this effort will lead to an optimal outcome for the DAO. Given my recent posts on scaling small grants, I believe Prop 175 takes us in the opposite direction.

• Inefficient capital allocation The prop asks for 65Ξ to allocate 10Ξ, a ~90% admin overhead.

• Non-scalable approach The approach appears to revolve around "consulting" services that are very manually intensive and do not scale, unless we want to employ a small army of consultants at the DAO like a Deloitte, Ernst & Young, PwC, KPMG, etc.

• Unnecessary creation of static website tools We should lean into automated tools like Prop House or AddressBoard. Information repositories already exist in the form of Nouns Center, which is already linked to from the main Nouns website.

• Unclear outcomes or measurements of success How is success being measured here? What benchmarks would need to be hit so we can decide if we want to fund an effort like this again (or clone it in other areas)?

I encourage the team to discuss this with the builder community and come back with a prop that addresses the broader concerns raised on their efforts.

You can read more on the reasons here: https://discourse.nouns.wtf/t/on-scaling-small-grants-at-nouns/3080