Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
w-g
@w-g
@krel any specific pointers on what makes prop feel drafty? Guess needs a 5th rewrite lol or if others are confused about anything? (might be first case of a third party attempting to fund another team w/o coordination ?) https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/stake-1k-in-rounds-32d1a53f6709a03f4b6cf4cb0501204ba188d4f5
2 replies
1 recast
1 reaction
supriyo
@supriyo.eth
For me it was a couple of things: - wasnt clear if the prop was about securing rounds future, or preventing a fork or securing $nouns future or all of those. It probably should do more things. - Rounds is very promising. But i don’t know if the prop goes deep into why “3mil$” worth promising. (It digresses)
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
supriyo
@supriyo.eth
my bad. i meant probably shouldn’t ** do more things. Should be focused on rounds if thats the goal. rest is just making auxiliary points diluting the prop or information overload
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w-g
@w-g
Was the explanation of the problem w $nouns liquidity clear? Prop is really integrating both and trying to be transparent about the value of a poison pill and why rounds is best candidate to custody . Maybe will add that by giving to rounds it means funds will ultimately accessible by all builders
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
supriyo
@supriyo.eth
i think if the main point was a poison pill w.r.t $nouns liquidity then yes. I did feel that rounds being the "best" candidate to custody got lost or subdued and poison pill took the center stage in the prop.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
w-g
@w-g
Y, I noticed that too haha. guess I figure(d) rounds value prop speaks for itself, or there’s more base competency in the group about it than the liquidity issue..which I’m increasingly seeing as more hopeless by the day.. think we need 1-2x more on top of this but is a start
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
