Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
This prop makes me sad. https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/662 But I know many thoughtful members support, so I want to understand. It makes it feel like the Foundation has been the main thing for Nouns and we need to find a new way to facilitate that action. Whereas I see the Foundation as a historic artifact. I worry that the Nounders abundance of caution on such things has harmed the DAO in the past. If you support this, what’s the main reason?
3 replies
14 recasts
34 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
Bitcoin doesn’t need a legal entity. Why do we? Buying a Noun is a sort of proof of work, like mining. The software says the miners can vote or transfer voting rights. I worry we heavily constrain our future on this path.
2 replies
0 recast
10 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
This reasoning to me feels a bit self hating. Crypto is not illegitimate. Millions of people know and trust crypto. Crypto does not need Nouns. It will succeed with or without. Trying to put Nouns under the authority of a single nation state in the name of “prove the crypto haters wrong” seems foolish.
1 reply
0 recast
8 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
If the Foundation needs a new entity that’s fine. But the Foundation should give up the veto right and its role should be intentionally diminished to zero, in my opinion.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
One thing that’s not clear to me (among many!) > They will be responsible for making sure taxes are filed, overseeing KYC of grants Why? Why is this now required when the foundation did not do so before? The foundation is not making grants. Software controlled by voters all of the world is.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
How would this KYC process be enforced? What stops non-KYCed people from receiving funding?
0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
