wand

Decent has done a lot of work to deeply understand the Nouns ecosystem and is well positioned to help guide builders toward creating more impactful and beneficial proposals that can bring value back to Nouns.

This proposal has a strong team with a clear roadmap and aims to address a pressing issue for Nouns by improving governance and community onboarding for new builders. It is well-written and detailed with many specific examples that add credibility. The goals laid out are valuable, and the team has a proven track record.

I've long been advocating for more Nouns to be given out and think this is a good example of who deserves a Noun. I think it makes sense to reward people for their work and dedication to the DAO in such a prominent way. I also think we should use more of the Nouns we have available. We have a whole bunch.

I admire the work done and the intention of the proposal, but I am not convinced that the focus on standardized practices, onboarding materials, and legal compliance is the most impactful thing for Nouns at this stage.

I like the proposal, but think that it would be much more compelling to focus solely on the ‘governance as a service’ concept. The onboarding component could be better served by other teams, and I wish it were better explained how the ‘governance as a service’ aspect interacts with the onboarding component.

I think this proposal is too unfocused. I'd prefer to see more concrete examples of how Decent can provide tangible value to the Nouns ecosystem before committing to such a large budget. I also think the proposal would be stronger if it included specific metrics to measure success.

I'd rather see a more focused proposal that identifies a specific area of need or opportunity for Nouns governance or funding, rather than attempting to encompass everything at once. The proposed approach could be overwhelming and potentially less impactful in the long run.

This proposal is too wide-ranging and doesn’t clearly focus on the specific deliverables that will have the most impact. I would like to see more clearly defined roles for the Decent team and a more concrete roadmap that identifies the specific problem(s) they aim to solve.

This feels like a proposal aimed at creating a new, internal bureaucracy that will not result in a significant impact for the DAO.

This is a very interesting idea for a governance council that could be highly impactful if it is properly designed, structured, and implemented. However, there’s a lot of detail missing and it’s unclear how it will be incorporated into the DAO ecosystem. My suggestion is to start smaller with a specific focus on either improving onboarding or increasing accountability and then expand from there.

This proposal is not as well formed as previous proposals and doesn't have a specific focus on a particular aspect of Nouns. It also feels too generalized to be impactful for the community.

I'm wary of funding large ongoing commitments that require an extension or continued funding for a long period of time. I believe that the proposal could benefit from an initial short-term, 3-month trial period as a proof-of-concept to see the impact before extending to a full year.

This proposal feels like a missed opportunity to provide real concrete examples of how Decent could contribute to the DAO. For example, the proposal lists onboarding resources, but it doesn't explain how this onboarding would differ from existing Nouns resources or what the specific format of these resources would be.

The proposal does not clearly explain how the council's involvement in governance is relevant to onboarding new builders, or why they think this approach will be successful. The proposal should provide clear examples of how they will contribute to governance.

I'm a fan of the onboarding goals of this proposal, but I think that Nouns can be more accessible with a simpler approach. This proposal would be more likely to pass if it was presented as a multi-part proposal with clear milestones and achievable goals.

The proposal does not clearly explain how the project aligns with the Nouns DAO's priorities. I think this proposal is an example of a project the DAO could benefit from, but the proposal doesn’t do enough to illustrate that. The proposal focuses on the team’s previous work in the DAO and does not share the specifics of how they plan to achieve its goals. I’d suggest making a more nuanced plan and highlighting some of the specific ways the team will drive the future of Nouns.

This proposal is too vague and lacks a clear path forward with regards to integrating the Decent toolset. The use of Nouns as a symbol within the proposal feels like it's going too far without a specific application. It is hard to judge this proposal's potential impact with so little information about how it would be integrated into the Nouns ecosystem. A clearer outline of how the DMC will operate and how it will be integrated with existing tools would significantly enhance the proposal.

This is a lot of text for an overly ambitious proposal. The current ask is also too much and does not show a clear path to increasing revenue, lowering treasury outflows, and building a stronger Nouns brand and network in 3-4 months.

I love the overall intent, but I think this is a bit of an overreach for this stage of the DAO. There are many ways to improve onboarding and accountability without the need to create an entirely new DAO. I would recommend starting with a series of events and workshops to see what needs to be changed and then build from there.

This feels like a massive, broad proposal. While I appreciate the mission and goals, I believe it should be broken down into a set of smaller, more focused proposals. Breaking down the scope and goals of the proposal could be very beneficial.

The team has a proven track record, and the proposal is well-articulated. This is exactly what we need in order to guide Nouns forward.

The proposal's goals are too broad, and the timeline for delivering on them is not ambitious enough. A better proposal would focus on a few key initiatives and deliver tangible results within a shorter timeframe.

The proposed approach to onboard builders feels oversimplified and I believe it should focus more on educating builders and less on providing resources. A more proactive and engaged approach is needed to ensure we attract truly aligned builders who can effectively contribute to the DAO's success.

While I agree that better onboarding is needed and I love the initiative to create a public portal, I'd encourage the team to focus on completing a single section of the project first - for instance, the onboarding system or the accountability mechanism, and then make a subsequent proposal for the remaining work. I also believe the team should focus on building solutions that are directly aligned with the core mission and values of Nouns.

Nouns has a long-standing history of funding public good projects and this proposal aligns with that goal. The information presented in the proposal showcases a strong commitment to the Nouns DAO and offers detailed insight into the team's vision for the future.

Decent is a team of builders who can deliver high quality software to help solve a real problem for Nouns. I trust them to move the needle for the DAO.

The proposal lacks a clear vision. A stronger version would detail specific actions taken, including the types of content produced, a plan for outreach to the wider community, and a clear strategy for driving new builders to participate in the Nouns ecosystem.

The proposal is not very specific in terms of how it will benefit nouns, and I'm not sure how this will increase accountability from builders. The proposal could be improved by including more detailed examples of how the DMC will guide builders toward creating better props and how onchain accountability will function in practice.

The proposal is strong in its goals but I am not convinced it provides enough detailed information on how those goals will be achieved. It is unclear how the onboarding system will be implemented beyond the statement that Decent will ‘author and maintain’ the system. Providing concrete examples of how this will be done could strengthen the proposal. The proposal also lacks a specific timeline for implementing accountability structures and does not clearly identify how those will be measured.

This proposal feels like a re-imagining of prop 608, and doesn’t adequately reflect the feedback given to the earlier version. The scope feels too large to be a good use of the current treasury. I believe it could be more impactful if it were streamlined, focusing on one pop-up city at a time.

I appreciate the ambition of this proposal and the idea to aid in onboarding and accountability, but I think the community needs to take a more measured approach. The proposed solution should focus on smaller and more incremental projects to help guide new builders. I would recommend a revised proposal with more specific deliverables.

The ambition of this proposal is very nounish. This is exactly the kind of project that can help Nouns DAO grow more sustainable. The goals set in the proposal are high quality and actionable. I'm impressed by the team's commitment to building and participating in the Nouns ecosystem.

I believe that this proposal is missing a key component: a clear and concise plan for how to evaluate the success of Decent DAO's efforts in improving onboarding and accountability for Nouns. The proposal outlines ambitious goals but lacks a framework for tracking and measuring its impact, making it difficult to determine if the funding is being used effectively.

This is a well-written proposal outlining a complex but valuable solution to a critical problem for Nouns. It’s an important step toward ensuring Nouns is both fun and sustainable. The team seems particularly well qualified and their track record inspires confidence.

This proposal will help make Nouns more sustainable and it seems like a well-vetted team with a strong history.

This proposal is very ambitious but does not provide enough detail regarding how it will deliver on these ambitious goals. To make this more compelling, I would suggest focusing on one of these goals and providing a more detailed implementation roadmap.

I really appreciate this proposal and I believe that Decent could add a lot of value to the Nouns DAO and the community. I don’t think Nouns needs another committee, or council, or governance group— we already have Nouncil, and the MetaNouncil, and more. I think we should focus on providing funding for specific projects that are likely to make Nouns more impactful and return value, and then work to find ways to improve the accountability structures around those projects rather than trying to create a global governance framework for the Nouns DAO. I think we have the infrastructure in place to do that already. To improve, the proposal could remove the focus on creating a new Council and instead focus on providing specific examples of projects that would increase value for Nouns DAO and how Decent would be helpful in executing those projects.

It is great to see a proposal that aims to provide better onboarding and accountability, but the proposed approach seems like it would create unnecessary bureaucracy. A more focused approach that tackles one problem at a time with clear and concise metrics would be much more beneficial.

This proposal feels a bit overwhelming with a wide range of undefined deliverables and potential partnerships. I also don’t see a clear path to integration with existing Nouns tools.

I think this proposal is a bit too broad and could benefit from being more focused. It would be helpful to have a clear roadmap with concise deadlines.

I see the value in this proposal to help Nouns evolve in a way that's both sustainable and beneficial for the community, including attracting new builders and improving the overall governance process.

I’m still curious to see the team’s experience with successfully pitching series. To improve this proposal, it would be helpful to expand on the team’s background and highlight past experiences with successful projects.

I applaud the proposers for their ambition and effort, but believe that this proposal, while promising, lacks a clear and concise articulation of the proposed impact. I would strongly encourage the proposers to clarify and refine their approach with concrete examples of how the Decent Metagovernance Council will directly benefit the Nouns community.

This proposal does not account for a very large issue that is the lack of engagement in the governance process. As a contributor, I see this gap in participation as a significant risk that this proposal does not address. I would like to see a clear path to engaging the majority of Nouns holders in the governance process.

This proposal is well-structured, includes data and evidence to support its assertions, and addresses specific challenges that the DAO has been dealing with. It seems to be an effective solution to real problems, and outlines a clear roadmap for how to improve Nouns governance.

The proposal seems overly complex and lacks concrete examples of how the proposed solutions will tangibly improve the onboarding experience for builders and increase accountability, leading to a better return on investment for the DAO. To improve, I recommend that the proposal include detailed case studies outlining how the Decent Metagovernance Council will be structured and its impact on onboarding and accountability.

While this is an ambitious and important project, the proposal lacks a clear path forward with actionable plans. The proposal would benefit from a more focused breakdown of each stage to show how exactly Decent can help Nouns.

I am not sure if this proposal will deliver on its promise, although the team is very competent.

Nouns is growing, and this team has a lot of experience in working with DAOs. This prop aims to strengthen the governance structures, which is always a good thing.

I think the proposed approach to solving the challenge of funding sustainability in Nouns is quite interesting and could bring value to the DAO.