did

This one is difficult for me. I love the concept but also am wary of giving access to the nouns namespace.
I think we could always change it later if we found it didn't make sense. But I also see power in the ENS being independent of the DAO.

I voted against the initial autobidder proposal because I didn't feel like a case was made for its purpose, and I'm now voting against this proposal for the same reason.

The onus is on the proposer to concisely explain why members of the DAO should vote in favor of a proposal and to ensure that the community can easily comprehend the project's intent and potential impact.

I'm using my vote with reason to encourage proposers to engage with the community and seek feedback before submitting a proposal so they can address potential concerns and refine their ideas to better align with the community's interests and expectations.

I think there are substantive issues at play here, and I was strongly opposed to creating the autobidder for Nouns DAO, but I am voting FOR.

As far as I am concerned, the substantive thing is that Nouns DAO deployed an instance of this contract. Adding an ENS name feels like a logistical item, and it would have been nice to have the ENS show in the feed when it was used to bid.

I think it’s unfair to say that the DAO can’t name/bless things: we’ve been on a Droposal tear! I would prefer a bit more provenance in the name, though, e.g. federationAutobidder.

I do think returning the ETH with naming turned out to be an odd combo and I think it would have been courteous to cancel this prop and split into two as soon as it was clear that the ENS aspect was going to be contentious.

Poll failed to meet vote threshold.

FOR - 19 VOTES

Classic_Craig | "get that shmoney"

AGAINST - 16 VOTES

.Wide Eye ⌐◨-◨ | "Am FOR of returning ETH
AGAINST the use to nouns ENS"

I think I mostly agree with everyone else's concerns about the DAO officially blessing this tool with a custom ENS. Similar to Gami's points, I would vote yes for something more specified, like prop-268-autobidder.eth or something along those lines.

A lot of mountains built out of molehills on this one. Straight forward and if people disagree, we can change the ENS record back. We're not writing this in blood, we're a DAO and each possess the ability to vote.

Taken from my newsletter Active Governance: https://paragraph.xyz/@thebower/UF6pmJQChyRthUTsBfq7

I wasn't a fan of how this idea was introduced in prop 268 and I'm less of a fan of this one. I really don't know what is being asked of the DAO and what the implications are.

Abstaining from this one and letting more technical Nouners make the decision here, but I would urge for more context and explanation with these kind of proposals.

Nouns should employ subdomains more extensively, as they offer an additional layer of credibility and comprehension that can be challenging to locate in the web3. We should avoid subdomains that imply a product is canonical for its category but encourage product/project specific names. For instance, the subdomain autobidder.nouns.eth conveys a distinct product identity, which enhances understanding when encountered at an auction or within an onchain context.

echoing sentiment of other voters that no piece of infrastructure should be canonical. also, as pointed out by 9999, resent that the dao getting its money back is tied to the outcome of this vote

i'd support this if fourth-level domains were supported in ens - eg. wiz.autobidder.nouns.eth - or if third-level domain was hyphenated - eg. wiz-autobidder.nouns.eth

thou shalt not request a subdomain

hmm... I don't disagree with the vote reasons so far, but I think it really depends on whether we think of "autobidder" as a category name or as a product name.

I don't quite mind if like agora for some reason needed a subdomain from us and asked for agora.nouns.eth. that doesn't really create concerns around making one product more canonical over others. it might be annoying if every team/product put up an onchain prop for this purpose just administratively but nothing beyond that.

I'm voting yes b/c I think of "autobidder" more as a product name and as a result don't think we need to be too vigilant here.

however, as a general matter, I'd prefer if teams/products used their own ENS namespace rather than use the nouns.eth subdomain namesapce unless necessary given the admin overhead for the dao!

Against setting precedent on the DAO choosing favorites in spaces where only one can be chosen

Voting with Will Papper and Krel here. There is no reason to use "official" Nouns namespace on projects funded by the DAO. Slippery slope, indeed.

A quick summary of my thesis as a delegate: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.”

I feel strongly that Nouns should not have a namespace that distinguishes between “canonical” projects and all other projects. Once a project is viewed as canonical, it will be hard to dislodge. Nouns should have a healthy ecosystem where projects naturally form and die. This allows contributors to step up, and just as importantly allows contributors to move on.

Much of this perspective is influenced by the Loot community, where projects viewed as “canonical” had significantly more sway among users than equivalent projects that were not viewed as “canonical”. If Nouns begins to bless certain projects with a canonical namespace, it will take energy away from non-canonical projects.

One simple hypothetical: What if Agora had a canonical namespace at nouns.agora.eth but House of Nouns did not? Is Agora now more “official” than House of Nouns? Should we bless more projects with official namespaces, to put them on a level playing field? What happens when those projects evolve, sometimes in ways that an official namespace would not like?

This is a slippery slope and I am opposed for that reason. As a courtesy, I registered nounsautobidder.eth and autobiddernouns.eth under my ENS at Papper.eth (also the owner, not the manager, of this ENS). I am happy to transfer these ENS domains to the team, and I am disappointed and a bit surprised that the team did not protect these ENS names prior to putting this proposal up. Canonical namespaces are a slippery slope, so let’s stick to non-canonical ones while norms develop.

I cannot support any official blessing of this technology without full communication of the vision for how it will be used by the DAO.

The nouns namespace is a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, giving builders access to the nouns namespace can act as strong signaling and help boost projects.

On the other hand, it can create unfair market advantages and act to suppress future (competitive) projects' ability to succeed or even willingness to try.

Im not sure, so I'm voting against this time, but i suspect there's also a decent probability this vote will age poorly.