Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
seneca
@seneca
- without nounders, vote is 130 vs 41 - without 4156, vote is 105 vs 41 - 2x more addresses voting for vs against - 3x+ more ppl represented by for addresses vs against - wag, 40, nouncil and the ~40 other addresses are all independent voters - nounders control <10% of total supply try finding another dao where between vcs and founders, they hold <30%. or better yet: try finding a dao managing real $ where the founder vote has ever lost. they donāt exist. i sympathize w the against vote. but calling nouns voting theatrics is dishonest.
4 replies
3 recasts
39 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Its theatre because even if 100x more people voted against, the three parties in wag, nounders, and 4156 could and would have voted this proposal through. minority is powerless, especially when there is no incentive or effort by the big guys to let minority leave (fork proposal failing, everyone and their mom knowing that 30% is too high for true honestly minority to leave as fork is designed). In a sense, the dao is already corrupt. The small guys have no real power when 3 people can routinely control enough of the vote to push through whatever they want. They are just nice enough to let us play when most of the votes are relatively inconsequential
2 replies
0 recast
7 reactions
seneca
@seneca
false. wag & nounders/41 ea control ~12% of active votes respectively. 25% against would have been enough to win out. also - wag is an independent voter who put forth his own capital and makes his own decisions. we have disagreed many times over. the disagreement here seems to be that your pov is rooted in this one proposal. i invite you to look at the history of nouns and you'll see a game where no one player has controlled the dao indefinitely. re: minority: 30% is by definition a minority. that it doesn't apply today due to inactivity is a diff convo. i would have liked a smoother transition (personally advocated hard for 10% prop) but alas, none of these things exists in silos. last: it's unfair to say 'no incentive or effort'. from day 0 we've gone to great lengths to protect the game (discord, fork, etc). today, everyone is making hard decisions for what we think is best for nouns 10 years down the line. to paint a picture of malice is immature.
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
You didn't vote in the 10% prop š I'm not painting a picture of malice, simply revealing that large token holders are able to control the vote, plutocracy doesn't really work. This prop is one in which certain token holders felt the need to protect their interests and pull out the big guns (their large token holdings) so it's a particularly revealing example of how any one prop could essentially be decided by 2-3 people. It is simple to see
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
krel
@krel
what i find confusing here is the sudden shock that ādao that sells votes is controlled by the biggest/richest votersā ā this is very plain sight, no? my stance on nouns has always been that we are successful despite this wrinkle (which imo also is the current āleast bad solutionā), and our strong governance/vwr culture is what makes the financially driven reality less noticable on a day-to-day basis. Thats worthy of celebration, we should be proud of our accomplishments here, as its quite unique. But when the big voters vote for something they strongly believe in that also should not come as a surprise. Wrt theatre i think its not a very helpful framing. All governance is theatre same as everything is a ponzi. But yet we are able to build value. True for USA, true for Nouns. Everything is broken yet (most) humans dont just give up and declare failure en masse. We acknowledge the brokenness and find ways to push thru.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
