Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
wiz
@wiz
I appreciate people's efforts to ensure sustainability for Nouns and improve the DAO's operations. However, I want to offer a word of caution: piling on bureaucracy could alienate existing members and discourage talented individuals with the skills we’re after from joining us. Additionally imposing below market or regionally focused comp will also repel talent. Nouns operates like a marketplace. We’ve got capital to offer, but we’re up against other opportunities vying for the attention of the world’s best builders. Choose wisely?
3 replies
2 recasts
19 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Definitely some balance between wanting to give people opportunities and paying them well with being frustrated by outcomes and not feeling like ROI has been there fully. Tech is probably the domain I can speak best to, I think the 300k FC round is a good example. $for$ that probably wasn’t “worth it”. Only 1/3 actually got built so immediately that’s 200k pissed away. The last client nounspace is a genuine effort and I love to see that but I don’t think it became the beacon of nouns x fc that folks hoped for when funding that prop. As a result, people become jaded about tech props, and leads to things like base paint team offering to explore a few ideas in nouns for a modest amount (50k) and they get laughed out of the room. Huge miss imo to fund work class talent with proven track record. So we should fund great talent fairly but also be okay with more accountability and scrutiny
5 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
wiz
@wiz
the FC round is a little different. maybe the solution to mandated rounds like that is to run them w/ teams that can do milestone based payments
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
