big fan of the paperclip bros and the great work they've already done with Nounswap and beyond. glad to know they'll have the funding necessary to continue maintaining nounswap and shipping delightful and strategic software.

For: 8 | Against: 1 | Abstain: 0

+for — @latsko.eth

+for - I like that this includes retroactive funding. Looking forward to learning more about swaps but overall looks like a strong proposal. — @monitalan

+for @papercliplabs.eth has been working tirelessly to create valuable experiences in the nouns eco. i enjoyed using nounswap to find my forever noun too. — @humpty.eth

+against — @bixbite

+for great team — @datadanne.eth

+for — @krel

+for — @frog

+for — @carlosjmelgar

+for these guys exploring new paths and ways to incentivise people to play nouns — @pip

Paperclip Labs has done a ton of great work in the Nouns ecosystem. By retro funding strong teams, we also welcome in the next set of contributors. Let’s set a great precedent here

The nouniverse has voted through $NOGS ⌐◨-◨

FOR: 5 AGAINST: 3

26400 $NOGS have been shared among the participants.

In favor. NounSwap, particularly the treasury data/stats page, has been invaluable to visualizing prop spend vs. auction revenue. Would love to see more Nouns insights like this as part of future work.

I do wonder if the team can implement on its own, some kind of bonding curve POC, maybe every other Noun txn completed on Nounswap or something like that. I know the prop was voted down but would love to see Paperclip take this source of Nouns buys/transactions to test how use is affected by trying the bonding curve/fixed fee themselves. Everyone should be able to bid on their forever Noun or affinity Noun but not without some premium.

I am personally for NounsSwap + Fee with fee being on some bonding curve set by the dao where lower numbers cost more. I think alternative revenue streams back to the dao for nouns people will keep forever makes a lot of sense. I personally don't think we need the other stuff and maybe 33e to the team to build stuff no one will use is probably overkill. It feels like a lot of "pork" is added to the core point that people want (or don't want) for that I am going to vote No. I wouldn't like to see a much simpler version of this, for just the funding for the swapping and nothing else.

we're lucky to have a quality team in paperclip labs involved with nouns. hoping this prop can help bring in more talented folks and keep raising the bar on.

more like papership amirite ⌐◨-◨

⌐◨-◨

NounSwap: Choose Your Character! Has more than doubled in cost, while the bonus-delivered items don't seem to be worth the value.

Quality of products is undeniable top notch when playing around with them

The Nouncil has spoken.

We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord. The calls are public and all are welcome!

You can find a link to previous call recordings in our Discord "links" channel.

Nouncil has voted for this proposal, with 22 votes for, 16 against, and 6 abstentions. The work done by Paperclips Labs is vast and the impact on Nouns is undeniable. The Nouncil agreed that many people have benefited from their frames, subgraph, polls etc and helped 7+ forever Nouns find their home by way of swap props. Whilst swaps are evidently not everyone’s cup of tea, the Nouncil understands this is part of the game and just a small fraction of what the guys have contributed to Nouns DAO. We appreciate the dedication and time put in by the Clips team and look forward to seeing what the future holds. Thank you for playing Nouns!

FOR - 22 VOTES

bigshotklim | "This group has been consostently building and delivering value to the community. I think that we should lean into retro funding proved out work as a standard instead of dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars up front for a slick proposal and hope not to get rugged. Definite yes from me"

sqx.pcc | *"this is an exception to the rule that I am mostly voting for the team.

I agree with all of the no votes. on the reasoning. I’m not a fan of swaps as a focus. I’m not a fan of $nouns (even though I am accumulating).

and to vote on a prop based on non prop reasons had me leaning no, but.

building to a high level an area that 1) has been used. 2) to them or others. seemed a need. 3) continued iteration and completion.

for me. this is an easier yes if it doesn’t mention swaps at all. which is odd. nounish devs who appear to be nounish for nounish sake. (lots of bolt ons (unsure if paid))

⌐◨-◨ is about exploring all versions at a hi level. not just my preferred versions.

relative ⌐◨-◨ dev value to. I look forward to where the chain takes them… and us.

p.s. not a fan of paid marketing for this for the reasons above."*

AGAINST - 16 VOTES

peterpandam | *""Client incentives adds a layer of usage-based, retroactive funding to Nouns' clients. It's intended as a partial substitute to the upfront lump sum client funding model we've solely relied on so far. It is likely not sufficient to be the entire budget for all clients but it should relieve some of the funding needs for existing clients as well as enabling new client experiments to earn ETH without the burden of having to pass a funding prop." - Prop 550

not a fan of swaps, gl"*

ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES

Feels like a lot of the FOR votes are coming from a place of loving the team; I agree. In general not sure swaps are great.. A lot of the yes votes also signal this. To me, it feels like no one is buying a noun at auction they want to keep anymore; which is sad. Not sure the solution to that is voting no here, but the sentiment remains: "you can buy the lowest cost noun at auction and just swap it for any noun you want" (I hope thats not the CTA for the marketing, hehe) ... A Yes vote here, on the other hand, could be interpreted as being okay with large retro asks.. i'm not sure I am with 100k+. Going to abstain on this one, but also cant wait to see what the team works on next~

Amazing builders to support. ⌐◨-◨

A very solid team in creating new tools. Nouns has become an identity for each holder and this can also be a branding. It's worth it to give funding for what this team has done. Good job!

this aversion to treasury swap thing is odd to me. we do recognize that they get almost unanimous yes votes and have gone through seven times. so it facilitated seven actions that the dao explicitly voted saying yes that would be a good thing for the dao. i’m consistently a fan of allowing the later ID half of the treasury nouns to be permissionlessly swapped bc i can’t think of a situation i would vote against someone getting a noun they like more. i don’t buy the argument that this is leading to less auction revenue for the dao. yeah maybe on some preferred heads ppl feel there’s less competition? (not sure if that’s really right or we’re just low on auction demand rn). but then what about all the days there is more auction demand for a less in demand head noun bc they think they could ask for a swap? it would be raising auction prices for the average day and make competition more stable and steady. not clear to me that that leads to less overall auction revenue (my guess is more). my hope if that we just make the later half of the treasury nouns permossionlessly swappable to reduce the voting fatigue. making it easier for ppl to get their favorite noun heads is a good thing imo.

outside of all that i think the paperlabs team has been contributing consistently at a high caliber against a lot of setbacks and it shows their love and commitment for nouns and don’t feel this retro is excessive. thank you for building in nouns!

They ship. And have been shipping for a while. Definitely supportive.

Team are great shippers, definitely earned their keep.

Side note from this prop for greater props: Would like to see more retro funding after things are built. Think it better aligns a DAO model to builders rather than up front pay to hopefully keep a promise later.

Nouns is a magnet for talent. Paperclip has continued to ship for the DAO. Great case to share with other builders when attempting to bring them in.

we need more teams like this ⌐◨-◨

If this proposal were a 40 eth exploration grant for Paperclip without a specific product focus I would still vote yes, trust them to find the right focus. I am appreciative & inspired by how passionate they are about building in Nouns

+++ for those who ship

Even as someone who is not a fan of NounSwap, Paperclip has put in a TON of time and effort across the nounish ecosystem (the auction frames in particular are huge) and they deserve compensation for their work.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/605/votes

FOR 0 VOTES

AGAINST 151 VOTES

ABSTAIN 112 VOTES

I like seeing quality projects being rewarded for their efforts!

Vote decision led by krel and supriyo.

As stated by some others, I’m not particularly fond of swaps, mostly because I find the way that they require governance input to be taxing.

That said, it’s clear that Paperclip Labs is a dedicated team of people who are committed to building for Nouns, and they should be retroactively funded for doing so. In addition to this, I have no doubt in my mind that a lot of positive good has come out of swaps, invigorating people to dig deeper into Nouns as they find one that truly resonates with them.

I’d love to see Paperclips Labs expand beyond swapping, and this funding is the first step towards making sure that happens.

Retroactive funding is good for the DAO.

PizzaDAO would NEVER swap Noun 292. So we're the wrong ones to ask.

@playdna_ - A collective of individuals collaborating on a mission to make Nouns playable.

PlayDNA is FOR. See below for our collective vote with reason (TheBower, JP, FabValle, joaoborges):

We believe it’s important to encourage the path of retro funding, presenting it to new teams as a reliable way of building with nouns, by creating a great product and acquiring traction. While the opinions are mixed on swaps, there was definitely tangible value created for the DAO with their tooling.

Not everyone keeps engaged and building after the DAO turns down their projects/proposals. That alone speaks well about Paperclip Labs. Besides that, they have constantly shipped cool and helpful stuff for Nouns. I believe not everything should receive retrofunding just because it's done, but in this case, I think the team and the value they bring are worth it. Let them keep cooking!

I'm personally not a fan of the swaps. I really do not like it. Putting my personal preference aside, the team has certainly created value by taking the leap and bringing a tool to market that works, looks good and sparks conversation.

Bringing my personal preference back into the swap conversation as a whole: the more swaps come in, the more I'm feeling the inclination to vote against. And I'm sensing that others have similar feelings about it.

The value that Paperclip Labs provided goes beyond the toolings: they created a product that was in demand (significance tbd) for the community (us) to chew on which accelerated the learning curve, that for some/many/lots of us the tools aren't what we want. Hopefully this also sparks action towards finding perhaps a new consensus about what we do with treasury Nouns.

Also, I want to point out that I think this could've been a leaner budget if we funded the team upfront. Retro comp should always be higher.

While they're building out their footprint within the Nouniverse, a rebranding might be beneficial which I'm sure they've already thought about.

Either way, the team has proven their abilities, capabilities and sensibilities by having their ears to the streets / on chain and taking pro-active action.

consistent value creation, divergent opinions, quality execution. even if swap isn't the thing, the reward is well earned and the positive reinforcement ensures that this team is incentivized to continue to add outsized value in the future with swap or alt ventures

Personal opinions on swaps should be put aside to recognize that NounSwap is well liked by many looking to get their forever noun. Spencer and Cole are some of the best builders we have who have shown time and time again that they care deeply about nouns and enjoy building here.

40 ETH feels fair to me considering we regularly spend many multiples [of] (https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/520) [that] (https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/559) [amount] (https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/573) on events, which we hope will end up netting us new builders or bidders.

If part of the goal is to bring in new builders then I find it silly we choose not to recognize their work when they are earnestly trying to bring value to our community.

Cheers to Spencer and Cole for building great tools, and I hope you all stick around even if this prop does not pass.

Whilst i appreciate the hours these guys have put in, i agree with ppd here that swapping treasury nouns is not a good idea. Let's focus on helping people mint their perfect noun rather than minting whatever is available that day with the intention to instantly swap it with a noun from the treasury. Those Nouns in the treasury should not be swappable on demand imo but instead should be used for thoughtful initiatives and rewarding long time and/or valuable contributors to Nouns (e.g. the will papper prop).

Also agree that promoting $nouns to new community members isn't a good idea, I'm also guilty of this as i'm helping distribute 10k $nouns a day for memes etc at noun o'clock. Many people playing noc have asked me about the massive slippage etc and I've been honest with them, without decent liquidity the token cannot be sold or bought in large quantities + is limiting people to only being able to claim a Noun from the ~14 in the pool as opposed to settling/winning their perfect Noun at auction. Imagine you somehow manage to earn 1M $nouns but change your mind and want to go and bid, you will incur such huge slippage when trying to exit $nouns that you won't even be able to afford a Noun at auction... which makes no sense to me.

I have conflict of interest as I am running an auction house but I've tried to keep my critique to the swap stuff. The Nounswap auction house is decent as is the explorer but I just cant get behind the swaps, which I know isn't the only thing happening here, but eod the product is called Nounswap. I also gave this feedback to the guys on the Nouncil call last week.

While I do love the work Cole and Spencer have put into this and definitely don't want to discourage retroactive funding props for software like this, I find it hard believe that 40 ETH worth of value was created here. I would be supportive of something in the 20 ETH range.

noun swaps are a gimmick that detracts from the daily auction, the DAO's primary revenue source. swaps undermine the auction's integrity by offering a way to bypass the excitement of bidding for a new Noun. this leads to buyers seeking out cheaper, undesired nouns just to swap them later, distorting bidding behavior and devaluing the auction experience. the auction should remain the most exciting way to obtain a Noun.

$nouns token is a failed experiment and should not be further promoted. continuing to endorse this token to new community members only detracts from the value and credibility of nouns

client incentives were established to promote competition, allowing the best products to succeed and be rewarded. the reality is that purchasing a noun at auction through nounswap is not significantly better than doing so elsewhere. the lack of purchases, aside from one by Krel suggests that nounswap is not attracting new buyers. given these circumstances, I believe the funds could be better spent elsewhere

paying Toady to promote nounswap over other clients using DAO money feels wrong. Toady should promote whatever he believes is best not what he is being paid to promote... not nounish imo. if you want to pay him a referral fee from your client incentives that feels more appropriate to me

i do like Nouns Stats