wand

This proposal is missing a clear and detailed description of how the protocol will specifically empower Nouncil to better contribute to Nouns governance and community engagement. It also lacks specifics on what the protocol's UI will look like and what features it will have, which makes it difficult to judge its value to the community.

This proposal is a great way to bring one of Nouns' most important governance bodies onchain. It is innovative and would allow Nouncil to better perform its core functions. The proposed protocol is also highly scalable and would be a great addition to the Nouns ecosystem.

Nouncil is a valuable community member and deserves more support. This proposal is the logical next step.

Nouncil is a great group, but I believe this proposal is not the best way to achieve the goals. For a cost-efficient governance system, I think the focus should be on integrating the existing infrastructure of the Nouns ecosystem rather than building a new system from scratch.

The current proposal does not offer a clear path for integration or describe how it will be utilized by other metagovernance bodies, which are already using existing tools and processes. The proposal should clearly articulate how it can be used by the broader community and highlight use cases for other DAO members seeking to replicate the protocol.

Nouncil is already a well established and respected group within the Nouns community. I think they should focus on building a stronger reputation within the community and then return with this idea.

The proposal is a bit premature. It would be more helpful to explore client incentives first and then come back with a proposal for a more comprehensive and polished tool.

I believe that Nouncil is a key part of Nouns governance, and bringing them onchain would increase participation from the community.

This protocol will improve governance efficiency by providing a framework for Nouncil to vote on proposals and manage its treasury with greater transparency and less reliance on individual time and effort. This could increase participation in governance, improving the organization as a whole.

This proposal introduces a new and innovative governance system for Nouns, which can be easily forked by other DAO's in the future. This also helps to decrease the reliance on Nerman which could have positive implications for the Nouns DAO. It also addresses issues around current Nouncil operations with the multi-sig being inefficient and potentially missing votes.

I don't fully understand how this proposal benefits the DAO. It's unclear how this protocol will differentiate itself from other meta-governance systems. I would like to see a more focused proposal that highlights the unique value it offers and demonstrates its potential for driving significant, tangible impact within the Nouns ecosystem. I also believe that the team could achieve a lot more with a smaller budget. I'd be happy to consider a revised proposal with a more focused scope, clear deliverables, and a lower budget.

The proposal describes a solution but doesn't explain what problems it solves. It should be revised to outline the challenges Nouncil is facing and how the proposal can address them more effectively.

I am concerned that this proposal's scope may not be fully aligned with the needs of Nouns DAO. It's admirable to seek a more streamlined voting process, but the current system's efficiency has allowed for a valuable degree of community participation.

The ability for Nouncil to operate autonomously onchain is beneficial to the DAO. This feels like a worthy investment into a vital element of the ecosystem.

Would prefer to see a more detailed breakdown of features and a clear timeline for launch before committing funds. Also, the use of soulbound tokens would be much more powerful if they were able to be used for other Nouns projects.

I appreciate the ambition of this proposal, but I think it needs to be further refined to clearly demonstrate the benefits for the Nouns community and how it can be implemented more efficiently and effectively.

This proposal is a promising development that could greatly improve the efficiency and transparency of Nouncil. The protocol's flexible and adaptable design makes it well-suited to meet the specific needs of Nouncil and other metagovernance bodies. This could contribute to the overall health and growth of the Nouns ecosystem.

A dedicated Nouncil protocol seems like a good idea, but I think it's too much of an ask for such a small group of members. The proposal could be improved by having Nouncil focus on an easier to implement protocol that serves a subset of Nouncil’s needs first, such as only incorporating the logic for voting on proposals in Nouns DAO. Then, with a working MVP, they could explore wider functionality later.

This feels like a great idea, but I think it needs to be more focused. I'd love to see a Nouncil-specific set of tools, rather than a generic solution. I'd also love to see a clear plan for how Nouncil can become self-sufficient, particularly given that it's not meant to be a subDAO. For example, they could explore an option for Nouncil to purchase more Nouns through their own fundraisers. Maybe a more concise plan to reach a wider audience through more strategic partnerships or a comprehensive plan to integrate with a Nouns-aligned project would be more compelling.

I appreciate the proposers for the time and effort they put into this proposal but I believe it is not a good fit for Nouns. Nouncil is currently an off-chain group and the benefits of bringing them onchain are not fully articulated. There is a lack of clarity on what problem the Nouncil Protocol solves and the potential impact on the community. The proposal could be improved by highlighting tangible benefits and a clearer path for how this protocol will be utilized by Nouns. For instance, a clearer breakdown of how the protocol will enhance Nouncil's contribution to Nouns governance.

I’m a strong supporter of Nouncil and understand that there’s a high cost to deploy. Given that, I am not in favor of this specific ask. It would be better if we streamlined the design to reduce the upfront costs.

I do not like that the proposal does not include a full breakdown of costs in its content. Instead of a single lump sum payment, I think it would make sense to break down the funds into smaller increments, with a clear timeline of deliverables, such as 'Funding for development and auditing' vs 'Funding for team and operating expenses'.

This proposal is a unique step towards a trustless, decentralized version of Nouncil. The concept of Soulbound tokens is innovative and I hope we can explore their potential for other DAO governance.

I'm supportive of Nouncil and the work that the team has done so far, but I am not convinced that this protocol provides enough additional value to warrant the funding ask. I think we should focus on improving the existing Nouncil tooling and streamlining the processes that the team already uses before developing a new, more complex system.

Nouncil has a long history with Nouns and this protocol would solidify their voting process. This would make their decision-making more transparent and secure for the community.

While I appreciate the proposers’ hard work and commitment to Nouns, I am not ready to fund a new onchain governance system, as this is likely not the most important use of DAO resources right now. Additionally, the proposal can be strengthened with better context around the intended use cases of this system, such as specific examples of how it will change Nouncil’s participation. A breakdown of what a specific vote would cost on a per member basis could also be helpful.

I appreciate this proposal, but it's not necessary to create another metagovernance solution. The existing systems could be optimized and better used. I also want to see more emphasis on onboarding more community members into Nouncil rather than simply providing tools.

Not sure why we should fund a group of 30 people to essentially manage a new tool, when they could just be using existing tools from the Dao, and manage it via a separate channel. I'm not convinced that the changes are necessary and believe they could just be used without any major changes.

This protocol sounds like a huge boon to Nouns. I'm in favor of empowering metagovernance bodies to take action and help the DAO flourish.

Nouncil is an important part of Nouns DAO and a valuable resource to the community. This proposal is vital to ensuring Nouncil can continue to be a valuable resource for the community.

I believe this protocol has the potential to help Nouns and its metagovernance bodies function more efficiently and transparently. Nouncil's proven track record of supporting the project makes it a compelling candidate to lead this effort. The use of SBTs is an interesting element of the proposal that I think could further foster a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility within the Nouns community.

This proposal is overly complicated and doesn't fully explain the reasoning behind several key components. The protocol is also similar to another proposal, which makes me wonder what the added value is here. The proposal could be improved by simplifying the explanation and focusing on the most important aspects of the project.

I like this idea but the scope of the proposal is too broad. I'd like to see a pilot of the proposed governance mechanism before making a significant investment.

This protocol seems like a solid way for Nouncil to become more self-governing and self-sustaining while creating the option for other communities to do the same. I think this would be a great way to provide an alternative to Nerman for communities to participate in Nouns governance.

Nouncil's history with Nouns has shown that this protocol could be a valuable addition to the DAO, and it has already proven to be an important element in its ecosystem. This proposal seems like a way to solidify the group's work and move it on-chain for increased transparency and usability.

The proposal lacks a detailed justification for its existence. It would make more sense if it were aimed at creating something new, rather than a recreation of the $\~\~-\~\~-\~ token, which has already been developed and received a significant budget from the DAO. We are also historically cautious of funding any sort of protocol changes that could be susceptible to being exploited by bad actors.

I believe that the project needs to prove its value before moving forward with a long-term commitment for sustainability.

While I respect Nouncil and its commitment to Nouns, I think its current approach to voting, which is based on Nerman, is still entirely viable for the DAO, and for the time being it’s much more scalable, less prone to error, and more cost-effective than what’s being proposed here. I would be much more supportive if this proposal was focused on building a UI/UX for the current Nerman-based approach, something that would be far more valuable for the Nouns community.

The proposal details Nouncil's history and current operations. It would be much more impactful if Nouncil were able to provide a concrete example of how it would be used. If this protocol were to be successfully utilized, it could be instrumental in helping other Meta governance bodies around Nouns and beyond.

The Nouncil Protocol has been an important part of Nouns governance and has the potential to be replicated by other metagovernance bodies. This proposal could help create a more efficient and scalable system for Nouncil, making it more accessible to other members who might not be able to dedicate as much time to the community.

Nouncil is a cornerstone of Nouns and a crucial tool to ensure that the DAO remains aligned with it's core principles. However, the proposal is missing details about what the protocol would offer beyond the existing tooling. Additionally, a thorough economic analysis of how this protocol would impact Nouns DAO, as well as how it could be improved upon, is missing. The team should consider adding a detailed analysis of the impact of their work in the proposal as well as a comprehensive list of the features it will deliver to the community.

Nouncil's work in governance has historically been some of the most thoughtful, consistent, and dedicated. I'm excited to see a protocol that will allow Nouncil to operate more efficiently.

While I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, the protocol seems to be a direct copy of Fractional Nouns with only minor adjustments. I believe that more focus should be placed on making it more user-friendly and engaging with additional features that can benefit the community.

Nouncil is a valuable contributor to NounsDAO and this proposal would help them become even more effective. The scope of work seems reasonable and could be beneficial to other metagovernance bodies.

This proposal is innovative and could bring some important changes to the Nouns ecosystem. I think a more detailed explanation of potential alternative voting mechanisms could help bolster the proposal.