I don't see why would we just give away $NOUNS

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

Nouncil has voted Against this proposal, with 5 votes for, 22 against, and 6 abstentions. Thanks for playing Nouns, please try again.

FOR - 5 VOTES

peterpandam | "⌐◨-◨"

AGAINST - 22 VOTES

borg00000 | "unsure of objective here, park members already have several nouns that could be being used to prove this principle ahead of time maybe?"

ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES

Honestly, this sets a shaky precedent. Just handing out treasury Nouns to sub-DAOs without clear boundaries or criteria is risky. If we’re opening up the treasury, where does it stop? Who gets to decide which sub-DAO deserves it? Lil Nouns have brought hundreds of ETH into the Nouns treasury, onboarded nearly a hundred new folks, and even bought two Nouns with their own treasury funds. Shouldn't they be first in line if we go down this road?

We need to think long-term here. If we start giving away treasury assets without strong guidelines, it’s only a matter of time before everyone lines up for a piece. It’s not sustainable, and it risks watering down the core governance integrity of Nouns DAO. We should be strategic about empowering communities, not just giving away valuable resources without proven contributions.

Go get em

Consistent, well-argued, and nonconformist vote reasons (VWRs) provide a cornerstone for functional Nouns governance that only works if you are prepared to vote both ways.

$nouns artificially increase quorum, making proposers more and more reliant on heavily weighted voters, putting pressure on proposers to do what they want.

Can Verbs do something? If we are going to push this token let's blacklist the contact address so it's not included in the count.

More experiments involving the nouns token is nounish

It's always interesting when a new experiment comes up in the DAO. The results of an experiment can only be obtained when it has been implemented. I don't know if it will work or not, but it never hurts to try!

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/674/votes

FOR 0 VOTES

AGAINST 23 VOTES

ABSTAIN 1 VOTES

gramajo | "test"

This is a hell yes vote for me. We should be expanding Governance experiments.

the park is great but i'm not a fan of diluting gov rights through subdaos. i've found that people do not have much interest in governance without some skin in the game

Would be cool if the treasury could just delegate rather than transfer nouns for experiments like this. But until that tech exists (if ever), this seems like a decent solution.
I support the experiment generally.
I do also agree there could be other routes to testing this such as using existing park noun with the community via nerman as mentioned.
Would also be cool to see a mint/raise among the park community to bid on more nouns.
But again, I am down for the experiment nonetheless.

i’m honestly a bit tired of defending my integrity against some sort of conspiracy claim about $nouns. what is this “intentional subversion of the governance process”?

i’m not pushing for some new token bag of mine. i’m advocating for a fungible token backed by nouns. i’m not even saying $nouns should be the only fungible token backed by nouns. if we think they should vote then i’m down with that. if we think they should have art i’m down with that too. the reason $nouns is dead simple with no voting isn’t because i hate governance or art, it was bc ppl were so worried about regulatory risks that i was like okay let’s just try to get the most dumb simplest thing possible through. no extra features. no upgrade controls over the contract. just pure immutable code. but ppl were STILL too worried about regulatory risks that they didn’t want the dao to fund the audit or deploy the contract. but nouns isn’t just the dao. ppl can choose to deploy and extend nouns the way they want even if the dao doesn’t fund or deploy something and that’s what happened. i’m not saying “community deployed” means some special official thing. it literally means that the dao didn’t deploy it and someone from the community did.

nouns isn’t a world ruled by the majority voting of the dao. you can push for things you believe in. you can advocate for it even if you’re in the minority and that shouldn’t be criticized as some “subversion of the governance process”. it’s ironic bc i’m simultaneously criticized as being part of a cabal that gets my way AND someone that ignores voting bc i didn’t get my way. i’m just advocating for a vision of nouns i believe in and that world includes a erc20 backed by nouns.

you’re also trying to imply that the dao disapproved $nouns and approved $(noggles unicode). why do you think ppl that voted against $nouns for regulatory reasons would suddenly have no concerns for $(noggles)? they just didn’t vote for the $(noggles) audit prop rather than voting against and for that reason it didn’t hit quorum.

also this foundation director non sense… again what is the accusation? that i’m friends with krel? krel joined a foundation board meeting bc clearly he leads the development of the leading governance client and his input can be valuable. your beloved wag was also invited in all of the same meetings bc clearly one of the largest holder’s perspective is also valuable to have as input.

i’ve joined the foundation board as an independent dao member and never been paid or used the role for my own interests. it’s been a pure service role.

we can disagree on things but this type of endless public slander makes it really hard to engage with nouns with joy

I think we might be bikeshedding this one just a little bit. There is no ETH ask, this is a proven community of nounish builders asking for a couple nouns to come out of retirement from the treasury to run an experiment... what's the worst that could happen?

And what's the best thing that could happen? I prefer to think optimistically, and support The Park's efforts to bring more musicians onchain via nouns. ⌐◨-◨

on behalf of /nounsfe
For: 1 Abstain: 0 Against: 4

Jess & Katalyyst against, +1 wylin, "I'm supportive of the Park but find it inappropriate to gift Nouns to groups who have plans to put forward props. agreed with others re: the voting record of only Fors with ⌐◨-◨ as the VWR and previous gifted Noun delegations not producing desireable results"

+1 team, but for on the chance that the 2 treasury nouns get to add some interesting elements to the sessions... I've loved the esports experimentation with community delegation & use of the treasury nouns

⌐◨-◨

"⌐◨-◨" - PizzaDAO Governance Crew

Like the park, but if the second noun is swapped, I don't believe it is necessary to be a 3 digit noun just because it’s a mug. I'm also unsure about government experiments based on past experiences, especially regarding government responsibility and the honor of being delegating a noun to just one individual.

It is not clear to me what the "experiment" is? What is your thesis? What is the objective? Sounds like the plan is swap to $nouns and then give the $nouns away. Great what d you expect will happen because of this?

As for gifting a nouns for governance experimentation I would much rather see the individuals encouraged to join Nouncil and participate in zero-weight.

Unfortunately not seeing the value to Nouns.

• The Orca Pod

⌐◨-◨ $nouns ⌐◨-◨

I'm supportive of the Park but find it inappropriate to gift Nouns to groups who have plans to put forward props. agreed with others re: the voting record of only Fors with ⌐◨-◨ as the VWR and previous gifted Noun delegations not producing desireable results

on the topic of $nouns: the narrative is pushed that it was community deployed.

after being defeated in the (admittedly plutocratic) proposal process -with another token's development succeeding the proposal process- a Foundation Director encouraged it to be released anyways: https://warpcast.com/noun40/0x4d265aab

then a long-term DAO member who has been invited to Foundation meetings and been visited at his home by the Foundation Director released it in an non-upgradeable form: https://warpcast.com/noun40/0xd416bc20 & tagged the Director when asked technical questions about the token: https://warpcast.com/krel/0x2cd4850a

in light of the facts at hand supporting backroom engineering by individuals with significant influence over the DAO, framing this release as "community deployed" seems wholly disingenuous, and an intentional subversion of our governance process.

after allowing the token to languish for months and the core thesis of "price will go up" not playing out, the Foundation Director is now encouraging Nouns projects to support the token, and despite some of them having reservations, they are considering it in the hopes it will secure votes for their proposals.

soft power coercion and subversion of the governance process fundamentally undermines the view of Nouns as an experiment in society-building, unless that vision includes unaccountable tyranny by a few, which would also fundamentally undermine the core promise on nouns.wtf of Nouns as a community-owned brand

I hope DAO members will recognize that while crypto is a fundamentally permission-less space, just because we can doesn't always mean we should. please consider not going along to get along, and preserving the sanctity of our governance process