Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Toady Hawk 🟡 ⌐◨-◨
@toadyhawk.eth
There was some discussion and criticism of the /nouns-retro rounds earlier today by my friend @peterpandam and others, with the main allegation being that the rounds have been full of builders simply executing their proposals and thus "double-dipping." Setting aside the fact that there are currently no active propdate rounds and there was no rule against active builders posting updates there, I just really didn't think that was a fair portrayal of how the rounds have been going (at least since I volunteered to help @seneca moderate them a couple months ago and have therefore been paying closer attention.) For my own sanity, I quickly went through the top 15 paid casts from each of the previous 2 rounds and did a little Saturday night spreadsheet warrior-ing to find that of these 30 retro rewards... (results in next cast)
8 replies
1 recast
20 reactions
Toady Hawk 🟡 ⌐◨-◨
@toadyhawk.eth
Of these top 30: -21 of them are not currently funded at all, to the best of my knowledge - 5 of them are or have been funded, but the post was unrelated or out of the scope of their proposal - Only 4 of them are currently funded and posted proposal updates This is a far cry from the rounds being "full of double-dippers." I personally think these retro rounds are a really impactful way to drive nounish building, accountability and creativity, especially in the longtime absence of anything resembling a small grants council within Nouns. I'm all for criticism, and especially that of the constructive variety, but we should also be careful not to jump to conclusions and mischaracterize initiatives that are actually doing a pretty good job of semi-permissionless capital allocation. (Special thanks to @dwr.eth for long casts.) ⌐◨-◨
8 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Appreciate the depth. Lately, I've noticed a troubling trend in the DAO — many are making bold claims without any supporting data. It's a lot of noise with very little signal.
1 reply
1 recast
8 reactions
Peterpandam
@peterpandam
OK, I was wrong. It's definitely not an issue. Carry on!
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
