Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
three9s
@three9s.eth
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.
1 reply
2 recasts
7 reactions
three9s
@three9s.eth
If we are not fully open and decentralized, these strengths are significantly weakened. The brand's ability to represent Ethereum's core values—like decentralization and censorship resistance—relies on being accessible to anyone, anywhere, without gatekeepers or KYC. Without this openness, Nouns would risk becoming just another exclusive club or corporate entity, disconnected from the broader Ethereum ethos.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
