Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).

I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.

I struggle with this proposal.

Not because I don’t want to support Klim. I’ve supported him as much as possible throughout the last 2 years and still want to support him in the future. Klim makes world-class products. I also believe that we should hold each other to a minimum standard in proposals by providing at least equal parts of story vs actual figures.

I struggle with this proposal because it’s trying to convey a narrative and personal feeling as hard facts. But there’s no evidence offered.

“Klim has self-funded a vast majority of his work.”
Honestly, I’m really not sure about this. I’m not going to do the math for you. It’s the proposers job to at least make it easy to validate / verify.

Why is there not a single mention of the funding Klim received?
The proposal makes it look like all the pins, fun noggles, and nounish friends, etc. were self-funded.

Additionally, how the proposal is written makes it unclear in which category this funding belongs?

Is this a retroactive fund for doing things out of scope?
What was in- vs out of scope? What were the experiments that went well that we could consider retroactively funding? What are the success stories?

Or is this a retroactive reward for your work? Fair enough if it is. Present some eye candy images, clips and highlight metrics. Job done.

Or is this a proposal for future projects?
“With retroactive funding, he will be able to scale Nounish products, attend more global events, and continue creating memorable physical experiences that bring Nouns to life.”
If it’s not, you’re just postponing whatever issue is prominent now into the future.

What’s also a bit concerning is for anyone asking about the actual financial impact, they're hit with answers ranging from (paraphrasing) “I’m not good with spreadsheets” to “I don’t have access to my files because of the hurricanes.”
—> Is this a disaster relief? Fair enough if it is. If that's case, say it. Because if it’s not, I’d rather have Chris and Klim spend more time working out the delta between (funding received + revenue) - spending. Even if it turns out to be 4x the amount of this ask, at least there would be clarity, and we can collectively rip off the bandaid.

There’s a certain scent of resentment in the on-chain air with a flavor of “it’s never enough” - it’s either not enough funding, not enough support, not enough distribution, not enough coordination, not enough consumers or not enough collaboration, etc. never enough.

Parts of me wish this proposal would simply pass - and I think it will - so we can get over it, move on and see this sentiment evaporate. But it doesn't appear that anybody actually knows if this will be enough.

There are many good reasons for different types of retros: Klim does great work! (!!!) and delivers many tokens of joy! I'm sure if numbers are properly addressed, that there is a reasonable and appropriate ask for retro funding some of the activities too.

As it stands now, I highly disagree with how this precedent is being presented without sharing the full picture.

It is very difficult to set precedent in an organization whose community is always changing. Even if the community is held constant, its introspection is not. The precedent set by a subset of past voters might be upheld for some period of time, but not forever and not consistently. New information or changing circumstances means proposals are always decided on a case by case basis. In this case, at this point in time, for this specific individual, and specific set of circumstances, the proposed reimbursement and Noun gift is appropriate. Welcome Klim!

We’re being asked to take this at face value without any evidence. Instead or receipts we’re given testimonials that vouch for Klim’s character... "trust me bro" for 75k is unacceptable.

Justification for retro-compensation includes manufacturing, marketing, travel, and storage, which makes sense since those are tangible expenses.

When asked for receipts or proof of these expenses, Klim hasn’t provided a single piece of evidence.

when questioned about the profits from the products he’s sold, his response was that he’s “not good at spreadsheets or accounting,” so he couldn’t provide numbers. Aren’t most of these purchases tracked through Shopify? It is simple and straightforward to pull sales data from Shopify. This information would give us all a clearer understanding of the actual costs and profits involved.

Given the lack of transparency, I can’t help but be skeptical about retro-compensation.

Rewarding good work with a Noun is fine but this is about hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The precedent being set here sucks. i'd vote FOR a more transparent version of this proposal written by Klim.

if this doesn't pass i hope we can pass a smaller USDC amount prop that doesn't anchor on the amount that has been spent out of pocket but on the out performance and dedication that klim has had in executing his props over the years

also thank you chris for putting this prop up. retro props are good imo. ppl should be able to do great things for nouns and get rewarded for it (ofc it shouldn't be like the person is OWED retro funding but we should have a culture where it's possible). for that retro culture to work there has to be ppl that put in the energy and effort to recognize the great selfless work of others. it's a lot of work to put up a prop like this (the prop writing, dealing with questions and criticisms, etc) with nothing in return. i personally thought of writing a retro prop for klim multiple times and shied away for those reasons.

a struggle i've had in my communication with klim over the years have been that klim would message me about a thing he thinks we should do (e.g. we should be at designercon) and i would say "put up a prop for it and it will likely pass!" and for one reason or another it wouldn't happen and klim would still go do the thing self-funded and i've felt a bit torn about that.

the yes vote here is not to indicate that we'll pay back whatever expense someone incurred in their own volition in support of nouns. but rather a yes vote recognizing the ways klim has gone above and beyond in ways i've followed over the years and wanting to highlight that

I struggle with this proposal.

Not because I don’t want to support Klim. I’ve supported him as much as possible throughout the last 2 years and still want to support him in the future. Klim makes world-class products. I also believe that we should hold each other to a minimum standard in proposals by providing at least equal parts of story vs actual figures.

I struggle with this proposal because it’s trying to convey a narrative and personal feeling as hard facts. But there’s no evidence offered.

“Klim has self-funded a vast majority of his work.”
Honestly, I’m really not sure about this. I’m not going to do the math for you. It’s the proposers job to at least make it easy to validate / verify.

Why is there not a single mention of the funding Klim received?
The proposal makes it look like all the pins, fun noggles, and nounish friends, etc. were self-funded.

Additionally, how the proposal is written makes it unclear in which category this funding belongs?

Is this a retroactive fund for doing things out of scope?
What was in- vs out of scope? What were the experiments that went well that we could consider retroactively funding? What are the success stories?

Or is this a retroactive reward for your work? Fair enough if it is. Present some eye candy images, clips and highlight metrics. Job done.

Or is this a proposal for future projects?
“With retroactive funding, he will be able to scale Nounish products, attend more global events, and continue creating memorable physical experiences that bring Nouns to life.”
If it’s not, you’re just postponing whatever issue is prominent now into the future.

What’s also a bit concerning is for anyone asking about the actual financial impact, they're hit with answers ranging from (paraphrasing) “I’m not good with spreadsheets” to “I don’t have access to my files because of the hurricanes.”
—> Is this a disaster relief? Fair enough if it is. If that's case, say it. Because if it’s not, I’d rather have Chris and Klim spend more time working out the delta between (funding received + revenue) - spending. Even if it turns out to be 4x the amount of this ask, at least there would be clarity, and we can collectively rip off the bandaid.

There’s a certain scent of resentment in the on-chain air with a flavor of “it’s never enough” - it’s either not enough funding, not enough support, not enough distribution, not enough coordination, not enough consumers or not enough collaboration, etc. never enough.

Parts of me wish this proposal would simply pass - and I think it will - so we can get over it, move on and see this sentiment evaporate. But it doesn't appear that anybody actually knows if this will be enough.

There are many good reasons for different types of retros: Klim does great work! (!!!) and delivers many tokens of joy! I'm sure if numbers are properly addressed, that there is a reasonable and appropriate ask for retro funding some of the activities too.

As it stands now, I highly disagree with how this precedent is being presented without sharing the full picture.

Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).

I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.

I struggle with this proposal.

Not because I don’t want to support Klim. I’ve supported him as much as possible throughout the last 2 years and still want to support him in the future. Klim makes world-class products. I also believe that we should hold each other to a minimum standard in proposals by providing at least equal parts of story vs actual figures.

I struggle with this proposal because it’s trying to convey a narrative and personal feeling as hard facts. But there’s no evidence offered.

“Klim has self-funded a vast majority of his work.”
Honestly, I’m really not sure about this. I’m not going to do the math for you. It’s the proposers job to at least make it easy to validate / verify.

Why is there not a single mention of the funding Klim received?
The proposal makes it look like all the pins, fun noggles, and nounish friends, etc. were self-funded.

Additionally, how the proposal is written makes it unclear in which category this funding belongs?

Is this a retroactive fund for doing things out of scope?
What was in- vs out of scope? What were the experiments that went well that we could consider retroactively funding? What are the success stories?

Or is this a retroactive reward for your work? Fair enough if it is. Present some eye candy images, clips and highlight metrics. Job done.

Or is this a proposal for future projects?
“With retroactive funding, he will be able to scale Nounish products, attend more global events, and continue creating memorable physical experiences that bring Nouns to life.”
If it’s not, you’re just postponing whatever issue is prominent now into the future.

What’s also a bit concerning is for anyone asking about the actual financial impact, they're hit with answers ranging from (paraphrasing) “I’m not good with spreadsheets” to “I don’t have access to my files because of the hurricanes.”
—> Is this a disaster relief? Fair enough if it is. If that's case, say it. Because if it’s not, I’d rather have Chris and Klim spend more time working out the delta between (funding received + revenue) - spending. Even if it turns out to be 4x the amount of this ask, at least there would be clarity, and we can collectively rip off the bandaid.

There’s a certain scent of resentment in the on-chain air with a flavor of “it’s never enough” - it’s either not enough funding, not enough support, not enough distribution, not enough coordination, not enough consumers or not enough collaboration, etc. never enough.

Parts of me wish this proposal would simply pass - and I think it will - so we can get over it, move on and see this sentiment evaporate. But it doesn't appear that anybody actually knows if this will be enough.

There are many good reasons for different types of retros: Klim does great work! (!!!) and delivers many tokens of joy! I'm sure if numbers are properly addressed, that there is a reasonable and appropriate ask for retro funding some of the activities too.

As it stands now, I highly disagree with how this precedent is being presented without sharing the full picture.

Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).

I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.

if this doesn't pass i hope we can pass a smaller USDC amount prop that doesn't anchor on the amount that has been spent out of pocket but on the out performance and dedication that klim has had in executing his props over the years

also thank you chris for putting this prop up. retro props are good imo. ppl should be able to do great things for nouns and get rewarded for it (ofc it shouldn't be like the person is OWED retro funding but we should have a culture where it's possible). for that retro culture to work there has to be ppl that put in the energy and effort to recognize the great selfless work of others. it's a lot of work to put up a prop like this (the prop writing, dealing with questions and criticisms, etc) with nothing in return. i personally thought of writing a retro prop for klim multiple times and shied away for those reasons.

a struggle i've had in my communication with klim over the years have been that klim would message me about a thing he thinks we should do (e.g. we should be at designercon) and i would say "put up a prop for it and it will likely pass!" and for one reason or another it wouldn't happen and klim would still go do the thing self-funded and i've felt a bit torn about that.

the yes vote here is not to indicate that we'll pay back whatever expense someone incurred in their own volition in support of nouns. but rather a yes vote recognizing the ways klim has gone above and beyond in ways i've followed over the years and wanting to highlight that

I completely understand the calls for transparency and arguments for voting against but I also think if it were anyone else in this situation the vote would look drastically different ⌐◨-◨

Klim's products have been a key part of nearly every IRL activation, pop-up, event, like it or not, including consistent support for us at Deli from the start with both product and vocal support. His work has spread Nounish culture in ways few others have.

We echo the concerns about transparency. This should have been addressed much earlier to prevent reaching this stage, so we understand the frustration being voiced.

We believe Nouns future benefits from having BigShot around. Moving forward, we hope Klim can refine his offering and streamline the process to avoid similar issues.

Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).

I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.

if this doesn't pass i hope we can pass a smaller USDC amount prop that doesn't anchor on the amount that has been spent out of pocket but on the out performance and dedication that klim has had in executing his props over the years

also thank you chris for putting this prop up. retro props are good imo. ppl should be able to do great things for nouns and get rewarded for it (ofc it shouldn't be like the person is OWED retro funding but we should have a culture where it's possible). for that retro culture to work there has to be ppl that put in the energy and effort to recognize the great selfless work of others. it's a lot of work to put up a prop like this (the prop writing, dealing with questions and criticisms, etc) with nothing in return. i personally thought of writing a retro prop for klim multiple times and shied away for those reasons.

a struggle i've had in my communication with klim over the years have been that klim would message me about a thing he thinks we should do (e.g. we should be at designercon) and i would say "put up a prop for it and it will likely pass!" and for one reason or another it wouldn't happen and klim would still go do the thing self-funded and i've felt a bit torn about that.

the yes vote here is not to indicate that we'll pay back whatever expense someone incurred in their own volition in support of nouns. but rather a yes vote recognizing the ways klim has gone above and beyond in ways i've followed over the years and wanting to highlight that

Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).

I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.

if this doesn't pass i hope we can pass a smaller USDC amount prop that doesn't anchor on the amount that has been spent out of pocket but on the out performance and dedication that klim has had in executing his props over the years

also thank you chris for putting this prop up. retro props are good imo. ppl should be able to do great things for nouns and get rewarded for it (ofc it shouldn't be like the person is OWED retro funding but we should have a culture where it's possible). for that retro culture to work there has to be ppl that put in the energy and effort to recognize the great selfless work of others. it's a lot of work to put up a prop like this (the prop writing, dealing with questions and criticisms, etc) with nothing in return. i personally thought of writing a retro prop for klim multiple times and shied away for those reasons.

a struggle i've had in my communication with klim over the years have been that klim would message me about a thing he thinks we should do (e.g. we should be at designercon) and i would say "put up a prop for it and it will likely pass!" and for one reason or another it wouldn't happen and klim would still go do the thing self-funded and i've felt a bit torn about that.

the yes vote here is not to indicate that we'll pay back whatever expense someone incurred in their own volition in support of nouns. but rather a yes vote recognizing the ways klim has gone above and beyond in ways i've followed over the years and wanting to highlight that

Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).

I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.

if this doesn't pass i hope we can pass a smaller USDC amount prop that doesn't anchor on the amount that has been spent out of pocket but on the out performance and dedication that klim has had in executing his props over the years

also thank you chris for putting this prop up. retro props are good imo. ppl should be able to do great things for nouns and get rewarded for it (ofc it shouldn't be like the person is OWED retro funding but we should have a culture where it's possible). for that retro culture to work there has to be ppl that put in the energy and effort to recognize the great selfless work of others. it's a lot of work to put up a prop like this (the prop writing, dealing with questions and criticisms, etc) with nothing in return. i personally thought of writing a retro prop for klim multiple times and shied away for those reasons.

a struggle i've had in my communication with klim over the years have been that klim would message me about a thing he thinks we should do (e.g. we should be at designercon) and i would say "put up a prop for it and it will likely pass!" and for one reason or another it wouldn't happen and klim would still go do the thing self-funded and i've felt a bit torn about that.

the yes vote here is not to indicate that we'll pay back whatever expense someone incurred in their own volition in support of nouns. but rather a yes vote recognizing the ways klim has gone above and beyond in ways i've followed over the years and wanting to highlight that

We’re being asked to take this at face value without any evidence. Instead or receipts we’re given testimonials that vouch for Klim’s character... "trust me bro" for 75k is unacceptable.

Justification for retro-compensation includes manufacturing, marketing, travel, and storage, which makes sense since those are tangible expenses.

When asked for receipts or proof of these expenses, Klim hasn’t provided a single piece of evidence.

when questioned about the profits from the products he’s sold, his response was that he’s “not good at spreadsheets or accounting,” so he couldn’t provide numbers. Aren’t most of these purchases tracked through Shopify? It is simple and straightforward to pull sales data from Shopify. This information would give us all a clearer understanding of the actual costs and profits involved.

Given the lack of transparency, I can’t help but be skeptical about retro-compensation.

Rewarding good work with a Noun is fine but this is about hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The precedent being set here sucks. i'd vote FOR a more transparent version of this proposal written by Klim.

This is a tough one because while it’s a big ask from a relatively small treasury, it’s about whether we incentivize taking on big projects for the DAO even when they can bring unpredictable risks.

I considered abstaining on this one given how new I am, but I am choosing to vote because I think it is detrimental to the DAO if we do not show up for people when they go beyond the call of duty for the DAO. Especially when they’re rebuilding after a hurricane.

Finally and importantly, given how close this vote is I do not think Klim or anyone else will put themselves in this position on purpose in the future.

As the author of this proposal, the intention is to reward Klim for his outstanding contributions to the proliferation of Nouns. It was not intended to be an expense report but rather uses his personal expenses as a reference point for determining the reward.

Klim’s impact and generosity towards our initiatives embody the spirit of Nouns. Thank you, Klim, for all you have done for Nouns.

Nouns is lucky to have Klim.

While nobody is entitled to retroactive funding because they chose to spend their own resources for the benefit of Nouns, Klim has clearly contributed significant resources, energy, and value and I think has more than earned this.

Looking forward to seeing what Klim daos next 🚀

Klim is the sort of people we want in. People that do it out of love and passion for the community we are making. Even tho I find the amount a bit too high, I'll vote for yes

Klim has put so much time, energy, and effort into nouns over the last few years, FAR beyond anything he was funded for. His giant fun noggles are damn near synonymous with IRL Nouns events- for many (myself included) they were the first physical nouns item we ever held.

More than that, he has a phenomenal amount of knowledge around design and proliferation via toys- his voice in this community has been absolutely invaluable in those areas, and he has always given that knowledge away freely, embodying what it is to be nounish in both word and deed.

Rewarding that dedication is a no brainer for me, especially after so long. Easy Hell Yes.

As the author of this proposal, the intention is to reward Klim for his outstanding contributions to the proliferation of Nouns. It was not intended to be an expense report but rather uses his personal expenses as a reference point for determining the reward.

Klim’s impact and generosity towards our initiatives embody the spirit of Nouns. Thank you, Klim, for all you have done for Nouns.

Klim is the sort of people we want in. People that do it out of love and passion for the community we are making. Even tho I find the amount a bit too high, I'll vote for yes

Met Klim at Nouns Towns. He's incredibly passionate about nounish culture. His products are 10/10 quality and I hope to see more of him in the future.

The proposal requests a significant retroactive funding of $75,000 USDC and a Noun NFT without providing a clear financial return mechanism or measurable KPIs. While Klim's contributions to the Nouns community are acknowledged, the proposal lacks specific financial metrics or a detailed budget breakdown to justify the expenditure. Additionally, the proposal does not clearly articulate how this funding will enhance Nouns DAO's brand value or strategic positioning in the long term.

For me, Klim's work should help him pass future proposals. Prefer to see a request to help grow his products and audience. This level of funding forward-looking. Not just mass distributing products to community members.

As the author of this proposal, the intention is to reward Klim for his outstanding contributions to the proliferation of Nouns. It was not intended to be an expense report but rather uses his personal expenses as a reference point for determining the reward.

Klim’s impact and generosity towards our initiatives embody the spirit of Nouns. Thank you, Klim, for all you have done for Nouns.

Klim has been working tirelessly to push Nouns as an idea in every way for quite some time now. While I understand there will be pushbacks to this proposal for some aspects of how it’s less business oriented than they’d like, Klim is the prototypical artist. He’s spent countless time and personal funds on trying to and succeeding at making things happen for this community in a way that I feel deserves to be rewarded.