Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
curious what the community thinks about this since its a sentiment i see pop up now and then my off the cuff take is that old/current nouns voters/members generally struggle to see new influential voters enter, its a power shift dynamic that is built into nouns but can feel uncertain and unpredictable* insofar nouns is a train that is both built and wrecked at the same time (h/t mikegood), the status quo feels 'safe' and 'steady' and in some ways its 'the mess we understand' i wont pretend im fully immune to the feeling of uncertainty, but i think ive learned to embrace it over the years. and i think you can make a case for this cyclical nature of nouns voters/power blocks being 'a very good thing' since it naturally combats stagnation which is a common poison for any org and, honestly, would probably kill nouns rather quickly were we to shut off auctions or otherwise ossify the voter base (note: not focused on or against mikegood, his comment is just what sparked the thought)
9 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Benjamin ⌐◨-◨
@latsko.eth
very little in Experiments is predictable in the the first place. But we were smart to bake in a directional prediction by open sourcing the protocol and CC0-ing the brand.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
frankie.base.eth
@frankieco.eth
This is a weak take – Plenty of structure could have been put in place to avoid the current state of the DAO. There’s no reason why operators couldn’t have stepped up to address these issues. Now, new holders are looking to build the structure and systems that were neglected.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Benjamin ⌐◨-◨
@latsko.eth
I don’t think that I disagree with you. „Structures“ in many forms have been built and burnt down/neglected/ignored in an incredibly high pace. it’s hard to say there were any.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
frankie.base.eth
@frankieco.eth
The problem wasn’t what has been built—it clearly was who was building it. I’ve yet to meet anyone within Nouns focused on day-to-day operations who’s worth their salt or taken steps to provide even a halfway decent onboarding experience. Where are these “structures?” We don’t even have the basics—materials, site/hub, access to social, unified Discord etc.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Benjamin ⌐◨-◨
@latsko.eth
Sitting on this „structure“ topic a little longer, it seems like the most robust structure that keeps overwriting any other „new“ structure (regardless of how grand the intention and quality), is the onchain governance structure, and the shared brand. Which - if we had to create the future based on learnings from the past - means that any new structure needs to be translated into code and governance, otherwise the adoption is not given. But we don’t have to create the future based on those learnings. We can keep coming up, implementing and rolling out new structures to see what sticks.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
frankie.base.eth
@frankieco.eth
Another weak take. Check the topics on Camp—there’s a clear, practical way to manage an experiment, and new majority holders are already building them. Calling everything an “experiment” is lazy. Governance has worked by building systems for thousands of years, which requires operators willing to do the work without pay. That’s why we launched Cares. Nouns is a great project, but no one here has the experience or commitment to build proper structures. The new buyers’ perspective is what I pushed for over a year ago, almost to the day (https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/519) but was shot down—often by people like you, Benjamin.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Benjamin ⌐◨-◨
@latsko.eth
I’m sure there are some flaws in my take, after all it’s just from my POV. I’m certain that I don’t see or understand all pieces, but I’m generally happy to change my mind after learning something new. Yes, I clearly voted against that proposal.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
