this tbh

Drew has been a pleasure to work with on a myriad of Nounish tasks, and I'm stoked to have him as a holder. He's one of the best voters we've got, consistently demonstrating thoughtful and impactful participation. Drew has been vying for a coffee head Noun for some time, and I'm thrilled that this beauty is going to such a deserving home. Welcome, Drew! I'm excited to build alongside you in this forever project.

For: 2 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 0

+for — @pip

+for We have so many Nouns in the treasury, this is one step that can be used to allocate to builders who have the capacity to progress Nouns. I think drew really deserves it! — @0xishal

The nouniverse has voted through $NOGS ⌐◨-◨

FOR: 31 AGAINST: 1

33600 $NOGS have been shared among the participants.

LFG Drew ⌐◨-◨

so many nuances in this vote tbh. Im just going to mail it in .

I chose to look at it like a marriage (to someone the nouns have courted a long time)

Drews vwrs have brought great value to Nouns.

We should try get better at retro rewarding members by doing it more, not get worse by letting "perfect" get in the way of "good".

There are benefits to awarding builders with an incentive aligned Nouns NFT as opposed to ETH.

We have Nouns in the treasury that desperately need redistribution.

For: 4 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 0

using the platform to remind anyone thinking financially about Nouns that I believe strongly in aggressive Noun recirculation.

Might be quite a bit more dilution coming & in that context the prop is a no-brainer. Feeling aligned/enriched with VwRs is great, but my personal view is that the relevant criteria are slightly different; is there a unique entity behind the receiving wallet, do they own a noun already, are they likely to fork? imo caring about nouns/being intelligent are fantastic supporting properties but probably less important than the first 3.

(is a bit of a subtle point but imo the correct way to reward vwrs is prob via meme-denominated payouts rather than gov-denominated ones. will flesh out more in other forums.. )

to be clear i'm also v glad we have these vwrs adding to the conversation. Welcome Drew!

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

Nouncil must abstain due to the poll failing to meet the required vote threshold and resulting in a split, contentious outcome. While some members supported the proposal, citing Drew's exemplary contributions and advocating for rewarding thoughtful governance, others raised concerns about setting a problematic precedent, the need for merit-based metrics, and potential issues of fairness and propriety in distributing Nouns. The evenly divided votes reflect the complexities and differing perspectives on establishing such rewards within the Nouns community.

Individual Reasons:

FOR - 13 VOTES

benbodhi | "An interesting precedent to set. Drew has been an excellent example of a thoughtful nouns voter and I think even if we were to backlog this type of incentive, the treasury could afford to reward the best reason givers with a noun. So I’d support setting this precedent."

AGAINST - 13 VOTES

imwylin | *""Soft precedent" became an issue for the United States Supreme Court, when it was derided as a "disturbing aspect" of the lower court's decision, "reason to grant review" by the Supreme Court, and that it was, "hard to imagine a reason that the Court of Appeals would not have published this opinion except to avoid creating binding law for the Circuit." - (https://ncapb.foxrothschild.com/2015/02/02/soft-precedent-unpublished-opinions-in-the-fourth-circuit-court-of-appeals/)

there are no other examples of hard vs soft precedent that I can find, and I find it similarly inappropriate for Nouns to establish this grey area as a formal practice. precedent is precedent, playing fast and loose like this is poor governance.

the core reasoning of this proposal is that a merit-based reward is due. meritocratic processes require metrics.

if the proposers is of the opinion there are other voters who should be given a Noun for the same or similar merits, they should be included in the proposal. otherwise, this and the subsequent proposals land more like a vote on Nounish Social Credit Score than a vote on the merits presented. This gives the appearance of impropriety in deciding who's in the club and who isn't, which would again be poor governance.

also of note for me, is that the individual to be rewarded entered the Nouniverse via a 10Ξ grant program, and was awarded $650,000 for a coffee shop without having completed due diligence before being awarded the funds. not trying to pocket watch anyone, it does seem as if the awardee ad the desire to purchase a Noun at auction, it could have happened by now.

since we're discussing precedent, the rush to award someone such a high level of funds without them performing basic diligence or a detailed overview of what the final product would be - a severe break from the precedent set by the Nouns Deli proposal - was not, in my opinion, an example of good precedent or governance"*

peterpandam | *"if he wants one they are available daily, dislike the concept of nominating people to receive nouns. plenty of people who contribute to nouns who don't own one. should they all receive one?

if money is an issue, ship a prop, use some of your compensation for executing that prop to save up towards purchasing a noun.

people should want to buy a noun, not encouraged to wait around and see if they are given one."*

sqx.pcc | "the ad hoc nature of nouns as gifts is..."

ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES

thanks index

☕️

I really like Index’s framing. Let’s make Nouns membership abundant for people who would be great members

Note: In full transparency, I was asked if I’d be open to being rewarded by a similar prop as well. I am open to it, but explicitly don’t want my VWR to be seen as setting a precedent for any votes that would involve myself.

i think there are some valid concerns raised by prev. voters, but trying to keep it as simple as possible:

would nouns benefit from having drew as a member? i think the answer is yes.

I love Krel's feedback that "as long as earning a noun is harder than buying one, we are more likely to be adding positive value"

In this case, Drew has brought great vwr to the table and I'm in support of comping that work.

I am also sympathetic to peterpandams point -- but agree with Willy that in this case it was more of an oversight on the DAOs part.

I think the treasury nouns should be put to work, and rewarding people in Nouns is a good way to do it.

Thought: I wonder if there's a way to add a protocol upgrade such that we can reward special nouns without them being transferrable/forkable etc. This would mean we could reward nouns that have voting rights and are still ownable, but technically have no "book value". I wonder if some of the hesitation to reward folks in nouns comes from the fact that it's essentially a 20-30k gift which is not insignificant. Getting a "voting only" noun would be sort of like getting an honorary diploma from a university. Maybe they could even have special art or a special trait. I would personally be more than happy to receive a non-transferrable noun with voting rights and think it's an appropriate gift in situations like these.

☕️

Unlike me, Drew writes thoughtful VwR. Like me, he loves coffee and Nouns.

I feel the perspective outlined by Peter is one that we should take seriously and this would be a great use of $nouns as mentioned by willywonka

Consistency is a valuable skillset, and I respect Drew for always showing up with purpose. Nouns has benefited greatly from his thoughtful votes with reason, many times guiding and educating fellow nouners.

+1 to lilfrog, noun40, brennen, and benbodhi words. To benbodhi's point, krel is setting a good president here. People should be rewarded for proposing ⌐◨-◨ ideas, and for voting and participating with intention.

As a member of dddvvv.eth and Prop 450 (also recipient of the grant, and someone who purchased a Noun in auction) I couldn't be more honored and prouder to work along side Drew. He fully has earned this prop, big kudos to krel for making it happen! I respect Peter's point, and think krel said it best "Honestly, if anything, i think the bigger error here is that we are not great at recognizing (and acting on) who is deserving of a noun."

I vote for supporting a valuable member of the nouns community.

voting yes for this because i've been a fan of drew's VwR since I joined a few months ago, but I also appreciate @peterpandam.eth's perspective on this.

While we do want to encourage and reward positive, otherwise unpaid contributions, and gifting Nouns are a great way to do this, it's important that this is done fairly. Otherwise it can have the opposite effect and discourage these types of contributions from those that believe they've contributed more but have received less value.

I hope $nouns can help solve this by facilitating more granular rewards for unpaid contributions. It's hard to know when the aggregate level of someone's contributions surpasses the threshold of receiving a Noun while also resulting in volunteers needing to contribute significant time & effort before [hopefully] realizing any value.

$nouns can help with this, while also mitigating the other downside that @peterpandam mentioned. If we reward voluntary contributions with smaller amounts of $nouns more frequently (perhaps through rounds or prophouse), I expect we'll see a greater number of volunteers earn a share of a $noun, and then purchase the remaining $nouns necessary to acquire a full Noun.

I think Drew's Governance contribution is exceptional. Having sthoughtful Vote with Reasons makes Nouns a better DAO and helps shape our conversation and Drew is certainly leading the way here.

An interesting precedent to set. Drew has been an excellent example of a thoughtful voter and I think even if we were to backlog incentives/rewards like this, the treasury could afford it, so I support setting this precedent.

I was personally awarded a noun in a prophouse round (thank you, I’m forever grateful), and have just today bought my first noun at auction. I think my path also sets a solid precedent for people being gifted nouns, regardless of reason, actually buying them afterwards.

I am a dedicated contributor to NounsDAO and a recent Noun purchaser.

I have volunteered countless hours, supported others, onboarded many, and obsessively promoted this brand. My initial interest in buying Nouns began around the time of the first fork. The fork discouraged me from purchasing because it seemed logical that there would be a significant price drop afterward. However, post-fork, the vibes in the DAO still felt off, and I was admittedly less enthusiastic. Despite this, I continued to volunteer actively and advise Nouns Esports.

Several initiatives began distributing Nouns throughout the DAO. I applied in the Army Pickle round, hoping to receive one for free, but was not successful. I anticipated that the distribution of Nouns might continue and that I might eventually receive one, but those efforts seemed to fizzle out.

When proposal 466 passed, I joined Nouns Esports as a full-time employee. This made me feel indebted to the DAO, leading to the purchase of my first Noun. I did this with 7 ETH of my own money (not Nouns' funds) because it felt like the right way to give back to a community that had already given me so much.

Seeing proposals that give away Nouns to individuals who have the means but are unwilling to invest their own capital feels wrong. Drew received $650,000 to acquire a coffee shop but doesn’t want to buy a Noun for $20,000? So we give him one for free and hope he continues supporting Nouns?

When Nouns are given away to people who have invested no capital into the DAO, it encourages others to delay purchasing one of their own. This behavior is counterproductive and sets a bad precedent. We should foster a culture where commitment and investment in the community are recognized and rewarded appropriately.

I’m in favor of this experiment.

since Drew is exposed to both sides in governance, a few thoughts/asks:

• 450 was an ask to purchase a very specific business with a very specific venue & location in LA. Now that this is off the table and the prop can’t be actioned, at a minimum I think it’s fair to ask for more transparency on how the 650k are being „reallocated“ resulting in transparently building in public. Let us be part of this journey.
• 450 is set to „complete“ which isn’t accurate. Is there an option to reverse this?
• there’s no disclosure in 538 about Drew’s engagement/employment with Base. not critical information since the grants will flow elsewhere and in principal it’s in alignment with everything we do, but still part of due diligence.

and a cheeky nitpicking on the last two paragraphs ;) a precedent is a precedent. imo heading up the leaderboard in revotes doesn’t really reflect „nonconformist“.

hope to see more VWRs coming in-between the coffee and shark tweets!

We should definitely encourage people with strong vision that pushes forward the whole community. Drew cares a lot about the project, his values are on point and overall a great person to have in the DAO. This is an obvious "For" for me.

drew cares deeply about nouns and shows that through consistent and thoughtful governance (and building for nouns), deserving of a noun imo

I always see Drew really active and positive. Nice Noun too.

Drew is a thoughtful, well articulated and self-directed nouns voter. Lets try to get more people like him participating via delegation or nouns donation. Strongly agree with 40 " quality gov participation is a nouns’ public good we should foster and incentivize!"

I like this, Drew's VwR's are valuable and help inform the entire voting body. Good governance takes effort, a workload that Drew lightens for many others!

Agree with the notes, esp. on this not setting a hard precedent.

strongly in support! for all the reasons lilfrog mentioned and what’s written in the prop but i’d also like to note that revotes are a pretty strong indicator of vwrs that are meaningful to other voters. ofc we can’t use it too literally as the only factor since it can be gamed but the fact that drew is at the top of the revote leaderboard organically speaks volumes to me and confirms the feeling that i imagine most have which is that drew’s vwrs are of high quality that shapes other ppl’s voting. i would also say that high number of revotes also likely indicate that drew votes with his vwr early (in contrast to someone like me who procrastinates). early votes help more voters inform their view so that’s another valuable thing embedded in that metric. love this prop! quality gov participation is a nouns’ public good we should foster and incentivize!

Good governance is great nounishness. I mentioned we should be handing out nouns as incentives to do good work. I still believe the most important factor about making Nouns successful is active and articulated participants. Let's use our Treasury Nouns to make that possible.