This action makes sense to me. Nouns pending award should not be used to vote.

Aside, I think the current model of using the Nouns Acquisition Committee is really broken, and I look forward to the day when the DAO can directly mint Nouns to people.

Rectifying the mistake of an open delegation, Nouns in escrow for others or in the treasury should be politically fallow. Not in favor of non-state change Proposal as a rule.

Reasonings given on my newsletter: https://cbites.substack.com/p/active-governance-noun-582-2

Vote Threshold not met.

FOR - 15 VOTES AGAINST - 14 VOTES ABSTAIN - 13 VOTES

i agree with the sentiment that we should avoid putting proposals on-chain that don't modify on-chain state, and as such, I'll be abstaining from any future proposals that fit this description. however, I strongly believe that Nouns acquired using DAO funds as a form of future compensation shouldn't be utilized for governance until they've been correctly distributed to their intended recipients.

+1 to 4156s thoughts

props that are instructive but don't modify on-chain state are a slippery slope and i feel reasonably strongly that they should be avoided. in the long run they could mire the dao in uncertainty and possibly even legal disputes. it's a more scalable approach to assume that any funds or assets that are external to the dao are the purview of the individuals or groups that control them. in the case of this proposal, the decision should be made by NAC