For: 0 | Against: 1 | Abstain: 0

+against this feels like it’s better suited as a proposal to ENS — @frog

via @zeroweight

i really appreciate thebower and the playdna team getting this prop together and putting it up. i actually vocally thought about this idea in the past and messaged with greg skrill about it a few times publicly on twitter as well i think.

i'm very pro the idea of making nouns work more tightly with core ethereum protocols like ENS but i think i have to side with the view that there likely won't be much demand for this. it's just the reality that not that many ppl use "noun[ID].eth" (and that's not necessarily a problem! i like ppl chosing their own funky names) and as someone how actually does use that format, i'm not too sure if i like 40.nouns.eth more than noun40.eth. my screen name is "noun 40" not "40 nouns" so it's just aesthetically not as pleasing.

so in sum while i think this direction of thinking has merit and really appreciate the concrete prop i just don't think we can justify getting this thing built when maybe a combined 5-10 ppl might play around with it and likely won't be an important digital identity primitive that gets much adoption

The nouniverse has voted through $NOGS ⌐◨-◨

FOR: 5 AGAINST: 10

33600 $NOGS have been shared among the participants.

from /nounsfe: For: 1 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 3

lunari: a collab with ENS that supports the entire chain would be pretty cool, I'd love to see this project be built, (it could even collab with NNS). +1 to the comments attached

tori: the benefit of having shortened subdomains is great for entry-level understanding. As a newcomer to web3, wallet ids are overwhelming & domains (69.nouns.eth) are much easier to grasp. The cost feels higher than worth - as this is not a nouns-specific project and ENS is already an established system, it doesn't feel necessary to collab as just a nouns project

katalyyst: I like the concept, getting more comprehensible names for your domains would make interactions online feel a lot more human I'd imagine. I think jkm makes a good point about how trading nouns/nft's would complicate things.

There's a couple aspects of the prop that are interesting but seem unrelated to the main purpose of subdomains (e.g. rounds on FC etc).

One question I didn't see answered is -- does the owner of nouns.eth want this? Not sure who controls that ens. So it's really their call imo.

Waffled back and forth a bit on this vote but at the end of the day I agree with ccarellaa: Nouns should be doing interesting things in the ecosystem, part of more components of the core infrastructure. This sort of forward-facing integration with ENS would be net good.

That being said, I understand where many of the against votes are coming from. I'm not sure if I would personally use the ENS address, and I presume that most people who are onchain-native enough to hold a Noun would prefer to create their own domain

I love the idea of a VoteWithReason round and zero-weight gas refunds. However, both of these feel very separate from the main concept of the proposal, leaving me a bit confused.

Best of luck to the team ☻

+1 feedback on this having demand. The examples given are people that go by number on a regular basis.. not sure im super excited about 862.nouns.eth ... Also not sure why we're combining this with the zero-weight experiment. Would also be good to know the breakdown of costs between the two; dev vs community management. That said, I like aligning ourselves with long standing eth native protocols, so i wouldn't want this vote to deter these types of partnerships being brought forward in the future. Good luck, fellas ⌐◨-◨

I appreciate Bower for coming back for another prop. Both this one and the Ledger prop werre well written and professional. Thank you. However, going to abstain as I can’t see a real use case for this.

I support Nouns hacks on core Ethereum infrastructure. A subdomain for every NFT collection is cool and can be used in creative new ways.

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 has decided against the proposal, with 22 votes opposing it. Many members argued that the ENS DAO, with its significantly larger treasury, should be funding this initiative. They highlighted the financial disparity, noting ENS DAO's substantial resources compared to Nouns. While there is interest in potential Nouns x ENS collaborations, this specific proposal was not seen as adding significant value to the Nouns brand. Despite five votes in favor and some abstentions, the consensus was that the funding responsibility should lie with ENS DAO. There is, however, still a desire to see future experiments involving both NNS and ENS.

Individual votes:

FOR - 5 VOTES

AGAINST - 22 VOTES

.mach. | "ENS DAO should be funding this"

imwylin | *"in February 2023 when eth was trading around $1,700, the ENS DAO had a treasury of $1.2 billion (https://blockworks.co/news/ens-daos-eth-sale-creates-runway) they’ve continued to make money since then on domain registrations & renewals, plus ETH has doubled in value and the $ENS governance token has had a significant price pump

it is ludicrous on it’s face for an NFT project/ DAO with ~$20 million to pay any amount for a partnership with a DAO/ Labs conpany that has 100x the amount of funds it has

this project could arguably be considered a public good given it’s non-rivalrous and non-excludable nature, i don’t see it as adding any real value to the Nouns brand though"*

borg00000 | "keen to see some nouns x ens experiments but not sure this prop is it , would love to see some nns x ens experiments too"

ABSTAINS - 7 VOTES

Since this benefits all DAOs (#.[collection].eth) I feel like this is more appropriate as an ENS proposal.

As I understand this proposal, subdomains will be automatically created for all Noun tokens, and only verified holders will be able to utilize them. This gives an official ENS, like 69.nouns.eth, as opposed to a self-managed ENS like Noun69.eth.

I like that the DAO can provide an official extension of identity into ENS. This also opens up some interesting doors. For instance, say we create a Noun 69 art NFT collection and point the royalties towards 69.nouns.eth. Now you can add non-fungible value to the Noun in a way that follows the Noun when it's traded. Also if you want to airdrop something to Noun 69 the correct address is simple to find.

One big request - when a token transfer occurs the ENS needs to point to the updated holder fast, and the previous holders permissions should be revoked. For this to be useful the identity must mirror the Noun token ownership. We have to trust it's accuracy.

Another question. Who should get the identity, the holder, or the delegate? I'm personally leaning towards identity following delegation but unsure.

On the whole I think Nouns has really let the "digital identity" conversation fall by the wayside. It's still a fundamental part of what we're trying to do and I think we should lean into projects trying to make it work. If we look through recent proposals nobody is using their Noun as a primary identity, it's all personal ENS. This is somewhat of a failure.

I'm not sure if people will use this, but I support it because I still want to put energy into the idea that Nouns can be used as a primary identity. If this inspires even a few people to use their Noun identity I think it's worth it.

Experiments with incentivizing governance are interesting too. I don't think these are long term incentives I want baked into the protocol, but I'm down for the short experiments.

I cant get over the hurdle that i dont believe there is demand for this product.

If you can prove that there is (in some small but tangible way) id be quick to change my mind.

I have voiced my opinion in many places.

This doesn’t appear new or novel. And in many ways can open up pitfalls in the future.

Pitfalls I have encountered in pcc as well as lilnouns. Where I had ens attached to NFT. Pcc as far back as 2022. Before provided by ens.

To reason I'm voting no for it:

• Nouns already has NNS, it's own domain system, and personally think it's super cool and fun
• I don't see what's the work that's gonna be done. All mentioned in the doc is already available by the default ENS. We already do with YOUR_DAO.dao.eth when you create a DAO at Aragon.

Voting against, maybe could be redefined and happy to change my mind.

I don’t think I’d use this personally tbh. I like top level ENS, and NNS. I do think the whole proposal has some cool aspects and it’s an interesting direction. I’m on the fence.

Appreciate the effort but I am not convinced it really provides anything useful for Nouns. And although it doesn't directly conflict with the Names project, I do think having both ENS collabs could cause confusion.

Please reach out to the Names folks (/names channel) on Farcaster, it might make sense to join forces and submit a prop that could be more beneficial for Nouns.

I can't think of many good use cases for this. I guess it's useful if you want to send assets to a nouns holder and you don't know their personal ENS, but you'd probably want to check to make sure they haven't traded away the noun in the meantime. And if you are going through the trouble of contacting them, why not just ask for their personal ENS name, which you know they will be holding onto long term?