Farcaster seems like it's on the brink of something, it feels like the right time to not be stingy & see what could be created. Rounds like these always are a leap of faith, but the potential upside is much more than the capital that'd be deployed.

Excited for this to go through, for the teams whose attention we might catch because of this & what they'll build.

ABSTAIN
🥌 0x32...d4f5

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

I think this double in spend has potential to create higher impact client concepts. I hope we see something amazing from this.

(noun40 voting via agora)

I think we're splitting hairs here a bit. mandated prop house round have historically been super high ROI in terms of eth spent vs the quality of teams we get to being involved in our nouns world. but we've had a hard time doing more of them b/c in reality what's much rarer than the eth spent on mandated rounds is the consensus idea for which to run a round and attract outside attention in the first place. it's opportunities like nouns x faracaster that's rare. not $150k or $300k. ofc that doesn't mean that we should spend recklessly at any amount but i think any top 3 team that's seriously going to commit building out a nouns farcaster client likely has a opportunity cost higher than $100k. we're just making it a little easier financially and demonstrating with a bit more commitment that we really care about this. we put out the bat signal with a $150k commitment and if seneca is telling us that the signals on the ground is strong enough that we should just make it $300k and double down then i feel like it's a no brainer. again what's rare imo is schelling points like this rather than eth. nouns progress has never been limited by our treasury eth and always been limited by consensus fuck yeah directions to push and fund. farcaster is a clear one of those imo and we should push hard to explore what's possible.

👀

I sympathize with Neel’s points and I do think we could have probably gotten some decent MVP’s for 50K, but I’m hoping that by doubling down here, we’ll get a few really committed teams who will build us products we can actually use long-term (and pay one or more of them to maintain if useful.) Also I trust that Seneca would not have put this up unless he got credible developer feedback that it was the right move.

I have concerns about tech debt but would like to see this experiment get the best possible traction and trust Seneca has done the homework that this is needed.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/509/votes

FOR 0 VOTES

AGAINST 102 VOTES

0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "Further assessment is necessary to ensure alignment with long-term goals due to the limited success of previous initiatives."

0xADa31Add8450CA0422983B9a3103633b78938617 | *"LIL NOUNCIL HAS SPOKEN

Delegate to Lil Nouncil here -> https://lilnouns.wtf/delegate?to=lilnouncil.eth"*

ABSTAINS 0 VOTES

Im also sympathetic to nbaronias view here but voting for in order to test this thesis.

Its not a perfect test ofc but we have some sense of the submissions/interest we've gotten so far, and we will be able to gauge how that changes when we 2x prize pool.

300k to 3 winner app teams is very, very cheap.

I agree with nbaronia.eth that we generally do not want to attract "optimizooooors who are weighing nouns' compensation against other projects."

However the reality is that the 150k to fund 3 teams (+2 people) for 3 months is not going to yield the expected results.

For 300k I'm expecting easter eggs and eye candy :)

"Top tier teams’ opportunity cost is far greater than Nouns’ current offer."
I disagree with this take, both for this proposal, and broadly towards other proposals. I think we as Nouns should choose to work with proposers/organizations (and proposers/orgs in turn should work with us) if we are broadly aligned in pursuing "nounish" proposals, however broadly one chooses to define "nounish".

Proposers should certainly be fairly compensated for their labor (and maybe even achieve further alignment with some form of "upside"), but I think there are better uses of our funds than spending it on optimizooooors who are weighing nouns' compensation against other projects. Nouns is such a compelling cryptonative project not because of the size of our treasury or ability to finance projects, but rather due to our idiosyncratic culture, and I think if either we or proposal recipients begin to make decisions on the basis of financial calculus that's pretty frownish.

I'm not suggesting that seneca is suggesting that in this prop, but I want to etch my reasoning on chain for future discourse.

FWIW, I am a huge fan of farcaster and huge supporter of farcaster related proposals for nounish proliferation. I'd love to first see how the existing tranche materializes before we make a decision on how to titrate the size or frequency of future farcaster X nouns proposals, but would definitely support a prop similar to this in the future.

Have a few thoughts:
👍

• diving into web3 primitives like Farcaster.
• iterating on the fringe at the speed of the fringe.

I however think the first proposal encompasses these enough

👎

• Lack of Debrief on Prop 395 (Aburra, formerly Alphacaster): Understanding the results and learnings from this initiative is crucial for informed decision-making on new proposals.
• Missing Information on Recent Garden Win.
• Many impactful projects, like BuilderDAO, Agora, Propdates and Camp, have originated from smaller, composable, iterative MVPs.
• Nouns DAO has previously funded projects that have not materialized as expected. Increasing funding may not address the core challenges. Instead, engaging and leveraging the Nouns community's strengths could offer a more effective path forward.
  👇
• Value of the Community for Developers: Nouns community is a unique asset for developers as a source of immediate feedback, bug hunting, and suggestions, which can significantly contribute to the success and refinement of new applications.

😑Leaning into development of supercaster or other farcaster native clients is another potential direction.
😑I think the original proposal across multiple seems could be exciting
👇

• L2 storage of reasons for candidates and signaling
• Similar to the recent proposal. Off the shelf contracts to signify cc0 , soulbound, royalty inclusion.
• etc...

The Nouncil has spoken.

We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord https://discord.gg/fdjJpMeV6K. The calls are public and all are welcome!

You can find previous call recordings here: https://nouncil.notion.site/30328df718424f17a623859018497fc2?v=806b5234a2a34b619c3d5028bcd879f0&pvs=4

Ths prop was somewhat contentious in Nouncil with a majority voting against, however the poll is closed failing to meet the vote threshold so we must abstain.

For deeper understanding of how Nouncil votes, please join our weekly call.

FOR - 10 VOTES

benbodhi | "Ben Stiller says “Do it!”"

joshuafisher | "let them cook"

AGAINST - 16 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 4 VOTES

The Amigos made a decision!

--

FOR - 4 VOTES

0xmonografia | "My only suggestion would be to dose the extra $150k with streams or milestone-based."

ok_lex_ | "interesting to see where the farcaster experiment leads."

AGAINST - 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 0 VOTES

Easy yes because farcaster is the future, and because I trust seneca 100%.

There was excitement around this amongst the Farcaster community at ETH Denver this week. People were aware of this prop (and the original). I love when other communities are paying attention to our props and when new developers enter the Nouns ecosystem.

Hey, Seneca! Thanks for the proposal and for coordinating the Nouns x Farcaster round. I’m super excited to see what will come out. Even though we have the chance to get three amazing clients that we’ll use every day, one of them being far more usable than the others and taking the place of the nounish Farcaster client seems more reasonable. So, stemming from that, I’m voting against it mainly because:

❌ I feel we could ask for MVPs instead of finalized products, so $50k would be enough.

But I’d support it if:

✅ we allocate the additional $150k for later development to the best client out of the three winners

But please keep in mind I’m not a developer, nor am I aware of the current rates. I’m expressing my feelings from the perspective of a layman in the field. Anyway, I strongly believe this round has huge potential and will be a success however it ends up being made.

i LOVE retro. prop 63 was my attempt to do this in as trustless, open a way as conceivable and we tried to include literally anyone that cared about nouns as possible recipients and voters. however it does frustrate me that we are still resorting to multisigs and that a perpetual fully onchain retro funding engine does not exist. If it did I would push to activate it with as much dao eth as possible, ramping up to around 80-90% of our annual capital raise. i continue to feel this is the ideal funding strategy for Nouns; maximally decentralized/open and so the most conducive to unbounded scale. SO the model is totally up my alley and I agree frictionless/social ux is important ...but the off-chain stuff really is a drag I know the proposers are not indifferent to this, but I do think the prop should address how this particular attempt can be made admin-less (and really scale alignment-wise if it ultimately relies on farcaster sybil resistance). thusss Would be much more excited about a prop to fund building coordinape-like functionality (ie allocation proportional to votes received) -but with fully trustless voter onboarding- either into prop-house or as a standalone onchain backend for future farcaster activations or otherwise . i guess in my head since its already clear that this is probably the most powerful & culturally-aligned way we can spend, these multisig mvps feel like sort of pointless interim steps. Lets build the right infra and really legitimize retro at scale!

I'm going to go against this one, not because I'm against funding the idea more, but because I think that's not the only issue. And unless the other issue is faced, I don't think this will be solved.
Basically, I haven't seen enough efforts being put into reaching out, coordinating and encouraging teams to participate.
Without that, just the cash price won't be enough in my opinion.

I'm all for giving the extra $50k don't get me wrong. It's just that I want to see the business development side of things more polished so to say.