醓 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

Lulu pfp

If we decided on using client incentives, we should at least stay consistent with it. The only stat that really matters here is whether anyone is actually using the client, and that comes from onchain client incentive records, which I don’t see mentioned in this proposal. If no one’s using Nouns Terminal, what’s the point of funding it further? And if they are using it enough, aren’t the current rewards doing the job? If they’re not, shouldn’t we be looking to increase the incentives instead of just reverting back? We put nearly a million into Verbs this year, and as far as I know, the only thing they’ve fully delivered is client incentives, which, if this is the outcome, seem pointless.

3 replies

1 recast

4 reactions

醓 pfp

I'd say as a counter to all this that Yuki was not around (I think?) for the 25e fundraise that happened prior. Entire 9e going to the intern, seems like a decent precedent + shows a level of awareness / willingness to listen from the nouns sh team rather than another 200k ask.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Lulu pfp

I'd say, there are client incentives as rewards, and if that’s not cutting it, throw it onchain and push for a higher percentage. Beats chasing clients with zero usage records.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

醓 pfp

Yeah I'm not sure how good client incentives are tbh, camp for e.g funded close to half a mil yet also getting 15e client rewards lol seems pretty hard for the unfunded to compete in any meaningful way without sinking hundreds/thousands of hours into dev debt, so atm retro makes sense

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Lulu pfp

Better to focus on what you can actually change. Sooner or later, they’ll ask for more funding, and it’ll probably pass, aligned friends with the big guys after all. Instead of funding more clients, why not create a competitive space? At least with a functional client and proper incentives, there’s a solid case against throwing in more funds. People see it, especially those hypothetical donors who think their contributions will actually go toward public goods. 😼

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction