Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Volky
@volky.eth
https://warpcast.com/bigshotklim/0xda7924 If the burn is being considered, Nouns should definitely double down on what's working. Proven, long-time contributors should be trusted with open-ended funding. DAOs could use more trustful relationships. Voting for everything all the time can only take us so far
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Noun 40
@noun40
instituting the burn is not an agreement to be more loose with our funding standards! (i know you don’t mean this but “if burn” kind of implies that energy a little bit?) also more buffer in funding, larger amounts, etc for sure but “open-ended” we need to be careful with
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Volky
@volky.eth
Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous there. I meant open-ended scope, not duration. Currently there's a lot of expectations that props include all the minutia. It consistently shows up in vote reasons. For proven contributors, I think we should make directional bets, instead of detailed work plans.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Volky
@volky.eth
E.g.: In Klim's case, we should be ok with "100ETH to get people noggles" I don't see a prop like that passing today. The current meta is very scrupulous, reputations and track record aside. Proposing requires a lot of energy, and we should ease the burden on proposers with trustful assumptions where they are due.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
martin ↑
@martin
Some of this might be a cultural shift that could happen (is happening?) but I generally agree I do think you can generally stray a bit from what your original prop was without too much concern, though. Kind of happening for me rn with Propdates.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
