UGLY stands with crypto.

agree with prop's "why" :)

Few points worth noting:

1. The mint alone will burn 2+ ETH in gas
2. So far 76.97 ETH in sales have burned 188.53 ETH
3. Therefore 71% of the ETH is wasted on gas

The gas costs to mint will be incurred by whoever executes the proposal, which I'm assuming will be Wilson, so if he's willing, then so be it.

Also we will only be the 3rd highest minter provided nobody else steps up in the meantime. This mint is an incredibly inefficient way to raise funds.

Coinbase, upon execution of this proposal, please update the NFT metadata to add Noggles to the shield.

I don’t think we should use treasury funds to signal political affiliations.

We are onchain—the signal of our support is clear and demonstrated through our behavior, this donation seems superfluous.

agree with the points made in the 'why' section of the proposal, also agree with willpapper that reaching out to gitcoin ahead of time might have provided additional marketing/PR opportunities (perhaps retro opp will be available if prop is successful)

isimpwilsoncusac

nom nom gitcoin ⌐◨-◨

I strongly support voting in favor of this proposal because I believe that Nouns should take a stand for important causes such as crypto advocacy. We need to ensure that the systems and structures which allow the DAO to exist can continue to do so for years to come, and it’s clear that they are currently under threat. This proposal is about safeguarding the longevity of web3 and its potential to create a better future for all.

I also think that it's a great idea to push Nouns to the top of the leaderboard for minting this Open Edition. Nouns should work to become a leader in the broader web3 ecosystem by regularly interacting with projects in this manner.

This is an excellent opportunity for Nouns to take a stand for a meaningful cause and expand its overall presence.

Donate with your own money to political/lobbying cause

⌐◨-◨

charitable giving is more efficient at the personal level

agree with Scott Lewis re: political statements

I've been working on a crypto company in the U.S. called bitwise for the past 7 years and the number of times I felt "THANK GOD COIN CENTER IS WITH US" is very high. they are a non profit. they are not getting filthy rich off of their work. supporting them and showing appreciation for their work is not a political matter imo in the same way we might consider funding other controversial societal matters. this is about supporting the credible neutrality of the base layer that is the substrate of our onchain world.

we have a chance to support that public good while accruing attention to the nouns brand and I think we should take it.

Would prefer not to see the 2 things stapled together, I know others complained about that on much smaller dollar Proposals recently. But at the end of the day, I and We do Stand with Crypto and Gitcoin is a fit for this.

While I do resonate with Scott Lew's Tweet saying that "nounsdao can do the most good by directly pursuing its core mission of making crypto soft, anti-scammy and socially positive", at the same time, I don’t feel like "helping to ensure that the freedom to transact remains in place for the average American" is necessarily contrary to that mission.

One of the greatest things about nouns in my opinion is that it can be many similar things to many people at the same time. I’ve often felt that one of the secret weapons of a brand like nouns is that we can integrate public goods as part of our very identity (rather than a corporation doing charity for the tax benefit/good PR/whatever for example) and I don’t think we should lose that inside of the weirdness that is also nouns.

Thanks to Wilson for championing this initiative!

⌐◨-◨

If not Nouns, then who? If crypto advocacy is not Nounish, then what is?

Proposals like this allow Nouns to establish itself as a positive force in the crypto ecosystem, from both an internal and external perspective.

Nouns play a crucial role in supporting Ethereum's public goods ecosystem, and it's essential that we rally behind this key collective resource that forms the foundation of our very existence.Let's champion these public goods and invest in the future of the Ethereum community.

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

I like the idea of having Nouns attached to important initiatives in the crypto community. It makes sense for us to be seen as a project that helps push crypto forward. Wilson explains very well in the proposal why this is beneficial for the DAO and I agree with him.

Pump it!

My thesis as a delegate is: “Nouns has a unique role in the ecosystem as a gathering place around public goods.”

Funding crypto regulatory advocacy is an excellent example of a public good. It is something that benefits the entire ecosystem, and it is something that many groups won’t fund. This funding is especially powerful coming from a more neutral organization like Nouns. Advocacy from VC funds and companies is excellent and their work is incredibly important, but Nouns serves a special role by decoupling its advocacy from direct financial interests. This advocacy also benefits Nouns and other DAOs, which lack significant amounts of regulatory clarity.

I understand concerns by Scott and others that regulatory advocacy is off-mission (https://twitter.com/scott_lew_is/status/1652699651265503233). Those concerns are thoughtful, and I agree that Nouns is not and should not be an advocacy organization for regulatory change. At the same time, I draw a strong distinction between funding advocacy and directly participating in advocacy. Funding advocacy in my mind is on-mission as a public good, but participating in advocacy is likely something that the existing advocacy groups can do far better than Nouns. As long as Nouns sticks to funding only, advocacy can be an effective public good.

That being said, I wish this proposal was stronger in its advocacy for Nouns PR. In my opinion, Nouns is not aggressive enough in advertising its donations, and that hinders it from attracting people and acting as a beacon for public goods. Claiming the top spot on the leaderboard is a good start, but I wish the proposal went further on advocating for Nouns publicity. A few things that I wish were addressed in the proposal:

1. Nouns would be putting up 50% of the funding for the crypto advocacy round (Coinbase put up the other $100K, with the rest being direct donations from users), but the description on the Gitcoin Grants Round only states that “Coinbase is on a mission to advocate for digital asset policies here in the United States, and this crypto advocacy round will support the amazing organizations who are leading the charge.” I would love a commitment from Coinbase and/or Gitcoin to include Nouns in the description of the advocacy round if this proposal passes. Coinbase, Gitcoin, and Nouns are stronger together! This is a collaboration I’d love to see.
2. I wish that Nouns had suggestions on how the advocacy organizations that will benefit from the matching funds could collaborate with Nouns. These don’t need to be requirements, merely suggestions. For example, welcoming advocacy organizations and their members to participate in the Nouns Playground and set a Nouns from the Playground as their PFP would set a nice norm, whether or not those groups choose to adopt it. (I also recognize that in this case, the amount is on the smaller side for that kind of PR.)
3. The history of the Shield emoji and Coinbase is something that I wish the proposal clearly discussed. It’s worth noting that the Shield emoji is repurposed from the “Coinbase FUD protection squad” (https://twitter.com/lay2000lbs/status/1551956224232628224) and was previously used by Coinbase employees and supporters to signal support for Coinbase as a company. While there are only so many shield emoji available, it is relevant for Nouns voters to know that they’re participating in an initiative that is repurposing symbols that supported Coinbase as symbols to support the industry. I am perfectly fine with this, but the history is relevant as Nouns thinks about how much it benefits from branding here.

In short, while Nouns could do more to advocate for itself and get stronger PR benefits from this, I am in support of this proposal. Funding regulatory advocacy is a public good that benefits the ecosystem, and I believe it matches Nouns’s mission as long as Nouns sticks to funding only.

https://twitter.com/krel404/status/1652776736734474240?s=46&t=HMDCibI3Hl5luKRaTagiHA