nouns-duna

anti-duna

I've been discussing with some pro-DUNA people to understand their perspective. It seems to come down to a fundamental difference in beliefs about /nouns 

Pro-DUNA people believe that being a conventional legal entity is the only way to collaborate with the largest (web2) brands globally. They see the core purpose of Nouns as being an onchain donation platform for IRL grants, and DUNA is optimized strictly for that.

While I think onchain donations are valuable, I don't believe this is Nouns' strongest purpose. I see the key strengths of Nouns as:

1. Bringing onchain values to the real world — the Nouns brand is a gateway to Ethereum and the principles its community stands for (decentralization, censorship resistance, etc.).
2. Bootstrapping identities — Nouns are among the best PFPs, and offer a fair and open mechanism for anyone to join and participate.
3.  Inclusive participation — community-driven governance structure where the best props get funded.

If there are other reasons I may have missed, please let me know. I want to be sure I am fairly representing the pro-DUNA perspective.

retired noun | crypto native build0000r | x.com/three_9s

It’s not clear to me why DUNA would be ‘strictly optimized’ for onchain donations? While it does allows
 for that, DUNA in an of itself is a purpose built legal wrapper that can be taken in any direction. 

I’m pro DUNA because it maximizes legitimacy by being a US entity, enshrining onchain voting and providing limited liability. 

As much as I want a purely onchain modality, the reality of the matter is that it is just not possibly without taking large amount of personal risk. 

If we can agree on the above, we’re left with A) continuing as an offshore entity without clear footing or B) pursuing the only legal wrapper purpose built for our arrangement. The choice is clear.

Now what we do moving forward (ie how Nouns scales) is an entirely diff conversation.