264069
three9s
@three9s.eth #264069
noun 999 | crypto native build0000r | x.com/three_9s
688 Follower 367 Following
"No, we aren't going to work with you because you aren't a registered legal entity in the US. But if you become one, then we'll work with you."
1. When has this ever happened to us?
2. Who is so advantageous to work with that it is worth throwing away our core values?
3. Anyone that has this sort of attitude towards what will clearly be the de facto organizational structure of the future *is not worth our time*. It's better to let economic natural selection take it's course until these entities are no longer.
1. When has this ever happened to us?
2. Who is so advantageous to work with that it is worth throwing away our core values?
3. Anyone that has this sort of attitude towards what will clearly be the de facto organizational structure of the future *is not worth our time*. It's better to let economic natural selection take it's course until these entities are no longer.
If there are other reasons I may have missed, please let me know. I want to be sure I am fairly representing the pro-DUNA perspective.
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.
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.
If Nouns isn't permissionless, then what's the point?
We should not be blindly following legal advice from third parties.
The world of law lags behind tech. If you ask 99% of lawyers about crypto, they would tell you to never to get involved in the first place.
We should strive to make new, innovative systems that align with our values.
The world of law lags behind tech. If you ask 99% of lawyers about crypto, they would tell you to never to get involved in the first place.
We should strive to make new, innovative systems that align with our values.
Unless you speak up NOW, the DUNA proposal will almost certainly get pushed through.
As reminder, DUNA will remove the permissionless nature of proposals (requiring grantees to KYC) and remove permissionless mechanisms that protect the minority (like rage-quit via forking).
The foundation believes a only small minority have an issue with this, but I don't think that is the case. This is a huge change that's main focus is to ease working with IRL brands, and at no point in the past had Nouns been reduced to just "IRL donations via onchain funding".
We're ultimately an extension of Ethereum, which welcomes all, even without KYC. We should have the same standards.
As reminder, DUNA will remove the permissionless nature of proposals (requiring grantees to KYC) and remove permissionless mechanisms that protect the minority (like rage-quit via forking).
The foundation believes a only small minority have an issue with this, but I don't think that is the case. This is a huge change that's main focus is to ease working with IRL brands, and at no point in the past had Nouns been reduced to just "IRL donations via onchain funding".
We're ultimately an extension of Ethereum, which welcomes all, even without KYC. We should have the same standards.
This is super cool!
If we're not permssionless, then we're basically just a web2 marketing agency with an obsession with square glasses.
Posting this absolute banger by @nekofar.eth on the the DUNA candidate prop feedback:
> The Nouns Foundation is like some shady secret society now, completely cut off from the community it’s meant to serve. They’re pulling strings behind a curtain, making decisions without even bothering to clue the community in. It’s got that "we know better" vibe, where instead of actually engaging with the community, they’re doing things in backrooms, leaving the community to guess what’s going on. They’re even hijacking community resources and employees, making decisions off-chain without any transparency. No surprise people are getting frustrated. When communication’s a one-way street, you end up with an echo chamber, not a community.
> The Nouns Foundation is like some shady secret society now, completely cut off from the community it’s meant to serve. They’re pulling strings behind a curtain, making decisions without even bothering to clue the community in. It’s got that "we know better" vibe, where instead of actually engaging with the community, they’re doing things in backrooms, leaving the community to guess what’s going on. They’re even hijacking community resources and employees, making decisions off-chain without any transparency. No surprise people are getting frustrated. When communication’s a one-way street, you end up with an echo chamber, not a community.
Unfortunately you can't vote and be in escrow at the same time, otherwise it would be tempting to join https://nouns.wtf/fork/3
So it only makes sense to escrow after voting against DUNA, but the DUNA prop just so happens to atomically disable forks 🤔
So it only makes sense to escrow after voting against DUNA, but the DUNA prop just so happens to atomically disable forks 🤔
Ignoring all criticism, rejecting the attempts to lower the fork threshold, and shoving DUNA though along with 3/4 of a million is ridiculous.
I thought Nouns was different.
I thought Nouns was different.
Check out FlappyCaster mini app! I just scored 19 points! https://flappycaster.com/api/frame/share/score?score=19&usersPlayedCount=4968&t=1727048535113
This is an excellent compromise to the DUNA issues and needs more attention
It would be great to get thoughts on this. If DUNA is shoved through, a fork is almost certain.
The question is if it will be easy, or if those against DUNA will be stuck in something they no longer want to be a part of.
The question is if it will be easy, or if those against DUNA will be stuck in something they no longer want to be a part of.
Regarding DUNA, how are we okay giving up being a truely permissionless DAO?
The only rationale given seems to be legal protection for voters, but this issue has never occured before. So we're preemptively trying to solve a problem that currently doesn't exist, and giving (what I thought was) a core value to do so.
The only rationale given seems to be legal protection for voters, but this issue has never occured before. So we're preemptively trying to solve a problem that currently doesn't exist, and giving (what I thought was) a core value to do so.
This has to be one of the coolest ways I've seen frames used—it could become the future of how most Nouns are born!
Looks like it's a tie
Not a problem, the token inventory can be built on top of the API!
Not a problem, the token inventory can be built on top of the API!
Help me decide what I should build next:
1. An API to get onchain information (similar to alchemy, moralis, etc) which is free to use for all /nouns builders
2. A place to see the market price of individual Noun traits based on mint prices
3. A video game style inventory / trading interface for tokens (image attached)
1. An API to get onchain information (similar to alchemy, moralis, etc) which is free to use for all /nouns builders
2. A place to see the market price of individual Noun traits based on mint prices
3. A video game style inventory / trading interface for tokens (image attached)
After thinking about this more, I realized I'm also strongly against "Requirement B: Conduct KYC". This requirement seems at odds with the ethos of the permissionless culture of /nouns.
Everything else seems like a reasonable compromise, but having to KYC to participate is a dealbreaker for me.
Everything else seems like a reasonable compromise, but having to KYC to participate is a dealbreaker for me.
test post pls ignore (I'm using the nounspace client for the first time)