It has been brought to my attention that my Nouncil vote with reason for Prop 436 has not been received well. I understand. After having a founder reach out for clarification and to express disappointment in my words, I more fully understand that nounish candor should always be the goal, especially when things are tough. I have the utmost respect for the lil nouns dao and the awesome projects that have been funded. I am empathetic to good intentions being unseen and roadblocked. I respect the founders and their decisions. I make no suggestions but I do offer my dm response as more of an explanation to my vote with reason below.

“The lil dao got taken over months ago but because it was the best on-chain funded nounish dao…with great tech and all the builders…it was continuously pushed as a place for new people to practice governance when everyone knew that (individual x) was in control and up to no good.

I am completely bummed that this happened…that the arb has now moved downstream…there has been on going opportunities for the community to work together way more…and the part of the community that prevented positive growth is the one now doing this prop…

Nouns, lils, foodnouns or gnars…each community is in a weird place and hitting different growing pain points..I admit to being frustrated…and ultimately know that solutions naturally will happen…I love the experiment but it is imperfect.

I know that using the veto was hard and people have judged that in unfair ways. I respect everything you have accomplished. This is not your fault. The open dao dynamics make this type of potential pressure a risk. All we can do is learn and keep going. As you know, I am facing issues with Foodnouns dao..and im sure that is clear to folks…but all we can do is be honest and move forward. I apologize if my comment was insensitive.
There have been public and private conversations for over six months about how a few certain individuals main goal was to buy nouns with lils treasury. Purchasing as a way to bolster their voting agendas in the main dao, while holding the largest bags of lils. That may not be something that was able to be controlled but it happened and is still happening.

This has nothing to do with the concept for lils, the tech or the people. It is merely the reality of the ecosystem currently.

The honesty around these growing dao issues were swept under the rug for months, including in Nouns.

It is my job as an early fully on chain nounish sub dao founder to understand what has happened and to avoid the same happening again.

I think lils has a great future…I hold lils…I will continue to support lils…but as the votes show in nouns for this prop…members want lils to find their own answer…to survive and save the dao…

I understand the emotions involved. You are allowed to be offended. I appreciate the personal attachment to the project 100%. I also could have written more specifically and I regret that truly. Nouns is hard…but that is one thing that makes it unique.”

sent from voter.wtf

dangerous precedent and the DAO should not be bailing out anyone or anything

sent from voter.wtf

Not our business to get involved with, and bad precedent.

Poll failed to meet vote threshold.

FOR - 10 VOTES

AGAINST - 17 VOTES

marxistmillionaire | "Don't call your parents, if you run into trouble as a grown-up. Figure it out yourself!"

cheffo | *"Lils has been a problem for a long time..yet still being pushed as this great alternative.

You made your bed. Sleep in it."*

ABSTAINS - 5 VOTES

There is no reason for NounsDAO to be involved in this.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/436/votes

FOR 583 VOTES 0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "If Nouns decided to buy back these tokens, it would be a win-win situation."

AGAINST 5 VOTES

ABSTAINS 63 VOTES

We (Lil Nouns DAO) don't need "bailing out" but there were some discussions at Lils about whether Nouns DAO would buy our Nouns. The thought was that we would be preventing arbitrage traders from acquiring all 16 to immediately fork (some Lil whales wanted to list 16 at 21.5e but their Lil props failed: 167, 168)...

Prop 436 could solely exist to further disincentivize Nouns from buying and create some imaginary wedge between the two DAOs. Multiple points made are misleading (e.g. props 149, 150 only passed as they were known to be non-executable and 'clearly interest' in reality refers to ~5 individuals). Maybe it is also important to note that the vast majority of active individuals voting in Lil Nouns DAO were ready to hodl these Nouns until the final bell and were appreciating our growing voting weight.

Either way, prop 436 may have helped achieve the potentially desired outcome of the proposer and these Nouns will likely end up in the Nouns treasury regardless. At least we will keep one, even if all the other 15 sell via Lil props 170, 171. 🔮

Conspiracy over.

against bailouts - very frownish

We shouldn't bail out things

I can't understand why Nouns DAO should become a buyer.

(noun40 voting via agora)

while i'm mostly aligned with will pappers vwr here, i'm partial to some parts of the argument that 0x32 is raising as well. lil nouns would like to use the fork mechanism b/c lil nouns whales want exit liquidity but what nouns have as an option is not workable for them (as a truly onchain dao that cannot guarantee that the claim step post fork activation can be executed without unwanted additional risks). is it fair to say that subdaos as a holder constituent should just figure it out on their own?

however, all of the above is a moot point given mikegood's vwr that this isn't coming from the lil nouns community in earnest and is from an arber likely masquerading as representing lil nouns' interests.

i would reconsider if the prop came from lil nouns' governance but even then i might still lean thinking that the current open market selling direction is likely the right path to pursue.

fwiw an arber put this prop up. likely to just make lil's look bad :(

Circumstances around this prop are a bit shady and the language is troubling ('bail out' implies Lil did something wrong to create this scenario when this is not at all the case).

However, it fundamentally makes sense to help ensure that they are able to get a price that is more than fair given the significant likelihood that fork # 2 would have executed with bv >25eth if they were able to safely execute the mechanic ratified in prop 162.

The method we have in place to buy back Nouns favors whales. It's fundamentally unfair to less well capitalized indivs and even more so to fractional owners/subdaos. What are they supposed to do? Being cold here is itself a disastrous cultural precedent to set.

There is marauder-y energy on all sides of this mess, and the ardent Lils caught in the middle are doing an admirable job trying to parry all the acquisitive interests and find workable solutions.

Its exhausting that when our response to those in our network most in need (and deserving ) of a good turn is "welcome to the game of nouns fuck you"

not supportive of bailing out - don't think it's a good precedent to set, nor does it seem like the right thing to do in this specific case.

I am a Lil Nouns holders, I have many friends in Lil Nouns, and Lil Nouns was one of the communities that helped me dive deeper into Nouns.

That being said, I don't like the precedent for Nouns buybacks. It's a slippery slope from "Let's help Lil Nouns with a governance issue" to "Let's buy back Nouns from community X to give them more ETH" to "Let's buy back Nouns from holders."

We have a mechanism in place for allowing Nouns holders to exit -- it's the fork mechanism. We shouldn't go outside of that and set a much worse precedent of buybacks.

If Lil Nouns can't fork due to governance issues, it's something that Lil Nouns should solve. They can solve it by forking or by selling Nouns on the open market. Nouns DAO should not backstop Nouns sales on the open market. Just like with treasury management proposals, if we approve it once, we'll get many more.

sent from voter.wtf

Absolutely not. This is inappropriate for Nouns DAO, there's no reason to "bail out" any DAO to begin with, but it's its own sovereign entity that can decide by its own governance and processes how to proceed.

But we should do the opposite and start pushing the RQ function up to 30% so that the arbing is more difficult and uncertain. They should RQ now if they want to sell their Nouns, the method they chose was not only a violation of their own governance and expectations around it (inappropriate use of the veto) that will leave a mark on their DAO and its claim of being "decentralized" but it also hurts Nouns DAO because 15 Nouns being on offer in the market gives any arber the control of when to create a fork and importantly when not to. She can now delay calling the fork and continue to "milk" the arb with little fear of the window closing because she can just instabuy enough Nouns to trigger it.

So no, Lil Nouns shouldn't be bailed out.