+1: seneca, noun12, noun40

Sent from https://goops.com Nouns Governance Pool

I believe in the team but I rather see them split and come back with several concrete proposals that can be evaluated on their own.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to vote and provide feedback on this proposal. We earnestly believe that deploying small grants to builders and creatives to allow them to explore the game of nouns is important, and we are confident in our ability to execute on this vision as a cohesive and aligned team.

If this Proposal is approved, we will hold ourselves accountable to find and fund new nounish builders to the best of our abilities, and to be maximally transparent in the process. In addition to the reports and updates promised in the proposal, we will also commit to using Martin's new updates.wtf tool to post biweekly reports of all new funding deployed throughout the course of the trial.

Thanks for this initiative! I recognize people on the team as ones of the most aligned with the brand and hope that something cool will come out of the grants

Tbd if this form of funding will be effective, but I happy to give the team a shot — and see the effects on https://www.propdates.wtf/

this team is dedicated and i think lots of excitement and new community members will arrive a result of this initiative. Good to run in parallel with Gardeners too imo

Rewarding builders for small and medium contributions to the DAO on a consistent basis was a huge driver for positive sentiment early in the DAO and something that has been missing lately. Excited to bring more passion and energy into the DAO on all levels.

nom nom S3G

mike good's vwr inspired a reframing of this prop for me.

I was against v1 as it felt like a missed opportunity to reset and try new things in the DAO, a la the garden. I maintained some of that sentiment on this version as well. however, taking a step back, I can compare it to my experience with this year's anniversary art proposal.

Similar to that proposal, we have a team that is trying to take initiative in an area that we can all agree needs attention and likely has all the best intentions. so, I'm voting to give this team the opportunity.

the DAO can always reassess in a few months and figure out which funding mechanic works better or try something entirely different.

I cast my vote in favor of this grant program due to its potential to enhance projects in their early stages. By refining project ideas, deliverables, and milestones, this grant program offers builders the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities and create projects that truly align with the spirit of Nouns before submitting them on-chain. Thus, this program would help mature ideas and prevent voter fatigue.

In my opinion, grants of this nature would serve as a valuable complement to the existing funding mechanisms. It would be interesting to determine the most effective formula for funding and committee compensation.

from Five

sent from voter.wtf

(noun40 voting via agora)

tough vote but I have to vote against.

I'm generally opposed to a centeralized group owning an open mandate entire funding layer. you might say "oh small grants doesn't matter too much since it's small" but the reality is that given small grants is the first touch point and also where a lot of prop builders start, if that layer is controlled by a group, then that group ends up having an outsized influence on what nouns is to a lot of buillders and there's too much risk of distortion/capture. that's my learning from NSFW (and to a lesser extent DCS).

my view is that we should support focused funding initiatives. like if someone with the relevant background wanted to run a hackathon focused on nouns frontend tooling and runs a mandated round and acts as a centeralized judge with a small budget (or infinite round for that matter), I would be very supportive. same for short animations or any other focused category. in those cases, my vote would depend on the person who's running the focused funding initiative.

also I worry that 10 person committees are an unhappy middle ground esp for a funding body. too large to be nimble. too small to be "voting body" of sorts that can claim neutrality. if we're centralizing a function then it's better to have 1-2 clearly accountable leaders. if we're decentralizing we'd want to cast a wide net and make certain of credible neutrality. this is more like a not really decentralized sub group within nouns asking to own a broad open mandate funding function and I think it's a mistake.

One does not need to hold a Noun to be part of the movement. We need more community members taking initiative, ownership and leveraging the CC0 license for their own creations. We then need to recognize and reward them. Impact = Profit.

I trust this team to stay connected to the greater community and keep them excited and engaged. My hope is that this will bring new people into the ecosystem measured by people being awarded their first prop house award from Nouns.

We need many funding vehicles for the different types of behavior we want to see and this one feels good for rewarding community contributions and making everyone feel like they can be part of Nouns.

Shouldve left this feedback last time (apologies), but i dont have strong conviction in this team setup.

One way to win me over would be to do something like a 15eth trial where all funds go to builders (no admin compensation). After the trial youll know whos got the right interests and qualities to do this job well, at which point id be happy to fund an extension including admin comp.

Faster, smaller grants are important. While the admin overhead is high, compensating community members for good work is still important. Voting yes despite these reservations, but would encourage reduced admin spend and a refund of any leftover amounts. I trust the team to spend the funds well and draw on what they need.

sent from voter.wtf

FOR - 33 VOTES

mamaxargs | "This is the way."

joshuafisher | "we like the small grants"

profwerder | "let’s get back to finding & funding great builders!"

AGAINST - 6 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 3 VOTES

Prop.house and small grants is where so many talented builders have onboarded into the ecosystem. It feels like something we’ve needed to happen for a long time and this team took the initiative- I think they’ll do a great job. Also feels different enough from the Garden rounds.

sent from voter.wtf

Let builders build again

Supportive of more grants — I agree with feedback that the 10 person committee seems too high, but I'm open to giving a shot given past contributions from the individuals in the group. Would like to see us execute and then takeaway learnings to make next version even better.

Echoing what Seneca shared. Additionally, I am also very keen to try out Prop 381 workstream as an alternative and think a lot of the 373 core contributors can opt for the gardener role instead.

As Noun12 pointed out, there is a real opportunity to widen the group of active builders and nouners here.

While I do think the ideas are good - I think having a team of 10+ while doing several things simultaneously is counterproductive. I’d reconsider if the prop was 1-3 people focused on executing one thing well (eg retro grants alone).

Good luck!

The people listed are passionate, but overlap too much in too many things and end up in many situations wherein they have to decide whether to vote money and opportunities for people who they work with in other endeavors (Nounish or otherwise) or are otherwise close to. It's a tough position for anyone to have to navigate well and it's not best practices.

We have 100+ Nouners who are active, I'd be supportive of a list of judges for this same prop who were all new to that type of role and have less conflicts. Fork is an opportunity to not do more of the same. We need fresh approaches and fresh perspectives.