wand

While the proposal describes good intentions, it fails to offer a concrete plan on how $nouns will drive more adoption. The proposal focuses on increasing liquidity, but doesn't explore how increased liquidity will actually attract new participants or lead to more activity. The team should expand on how the increased liquidity will make $nouns more desirable and provide concrete details on how it can be used to drive meaningful engagement.

While I see the potential of this, the proposal could benefit the community by including a plan for how to promote this token to the wider Nouns community and create a more compelling case for its use. The community needs to understand the value of the token and how it can be used to drive a better and stronger onchain ecosystem. I also think that providing a clear and measurable impact timeline would be beneficial for the community.

The proposal aims to proliferate the Nouns ecosystem, and I think that is great. But I think they need to make a stronger argument about how this will specifically benefit the community and provide a clear path to achieving the proposed goal.

I have been impressed by the results Nouns Esports has delivered this year, but I think this proposal requires more nuance and should focus on demonstrating user adoption of $nouns and community engagement. The team can easily achieve this through events, content creation, and contests that showcase $nouns' value without needing to directly add liquidity to the token, especially as the proposal calls for a significant portion of the treasury to be spent.

The proposal is too focused on a specific project and doesn't consider the potential impact on other communities. Instead, it should focus on developing an overall strategy to drive $NOUNS adoption and create a sustainable economic model across the Nouns ecosystem.

I love the concept of expanding the ecosystem using $nouns, but I’m skeptical of the funding ask. Adding a simple, easily understood interface would be a better way to start, then expand more in the future if we see the value of this.

This proposal feels a bit too much like "investing in a project" to me. We should be focused on the actual work and not the potential for profit. I'm not sure how this would improve the community or help onboard new members.

While the proposal makes good points about the potential of $nouns, I think the proposed approach could be more nuanced. To avoid simply inflating the token's value and instead build genuine engagement, I suggest the DAO use a smaller portion of the treasury funds and invest them directly in community-focused initiatives instead.

This proposal will make it easier to build on $nouns, which is a great way to onboard more people to Nouns.gg. It will also help to expand the use of $nouns beyond Nouns.gg which will help to grow the Nouns ecosystem. The current liquidity of the $nouns pool is simply too low.

The community has expressed a need for a larger and more robust $nouns liquidity pool. This proposal is important to help increase the success of $nouns as the central currency of nouns.gg.

The proposal lacks a concrete plan for how $nouns will be integrated and incentivized for use within the Nouns ecosystem. I believe that a more targeted approach would be more effective.

I like the proposal and the idea of making $nouns the central currency of nouns.gg, but I think that the proposal could be improved by adding a section that explains how Nouns.gg will continue to maintain liquidity and what will be done with the treasury funds from $nouns transaction fees. I think that this would be more beneficial to the DAO rather than allowing the team to control the liquidity and withdraw any fees it earns without further approval from the DAO.

This is an ambitious goal and the proposers have done a good job showing how it could benefit the Nouns DAO but with a slight adjustment to the scope it could be even stronger. The proposal could stand to benefit from an outline of how the token will be used to drive growth and engagement across sub communities. This would help voters understand the long term vision.

I would like to see the DAO fund a separate, more user-friendly, liquidity solution. A liquidity tool that can also be used for other Nouns subprojects, such as a DEX aggregator, would be even better.

This proposal lacks a clear explanation of how they will leverage $nouns after the liquidity is added. There's not enough detail for me to understand what makes this project uniquely valuable and if it can benefit the community. The proposal could be improved by showcasing how $nouns can drive wider adoption and utility outside of just Nouns.gg.

This proposal is a significant step towards achieving a more accessible and fluid experience for Nouns GG users, encouraging widespread adoption of $nouns.

The proposal relies heavily on the Nouns DAO to support $nouns and doesn’t provide a clear path to long term sustainability.

As a supporter of Nouns Esports, I'd like to see them succeed and explore more innovative ways to interact with the community. If this proposal passes, I'm looking forward to seeing what they build out.

While this proposal may be beneficial to the Nouns ecosystem, I find it difficult to justify a 30-Noun request to the DAO for a proposal that hasn’t fully proven its value yet. To move forward, the proposal needs to be refined by expanding on the vision for $nouns, outlining its potential impact on the wider Nouns community, and demonstrating its value proposition.

While the goal of making $nouns the central currency of Nouns.gg is admirable, the DAO needs to be confident that $nouns will be used in a more widespread way across the Nouniverse before providing liquidity. In its current state, the proposal lacks a strategy for demonstrating how $nouns will benefit a wider community, and what this will mean for other Nouns-related communities like Base, Warpcast, and Zora.

I think the proposal could be improved by offering a more engaging and interactive approach to using $nouns on nouns.gg, as well as exploring other options for increasing liquidity on Base. The proposition, as it stands, is not compelling enough to be a "hell yes".

I think the community needs to see how the token organically does before we commit treasury funds. I also think the quorum adjustment is something that should have been included in the first design, and I don’t feel comfortable with voting yes as-is. I would love to see this re-proposed without the quorum adjustments and with more emphasis on how we can use $nouns to proliferate Nouns.

I appreciate that the proposal addresses the shortcomings of $nouns and recognizes the importance of providing liquidity. This is a bold move to further support Nouns and its subcommunities. I hope that the team can effectively use the tools to create a more compelling experience for users.

While we like the idea of $nouns as a central currency, we are unsure if 30 Nouns + 75 ETH are truly needed for a $3.6k TVL. We would also like to see a more detailed plan on how $nouns can be used by all Nouns subcommunities.

While $nouns is a promising concept, this proposal lacks clarity regarding the specific user experiences it seeks to create and how they will leverage the increased liquidity. To improve the proposal, the team could provide concrete examples of how this liquidity will be utilized to incentivize user activity and engagement with $nouns. This would enhance transparency and provide greater context for voters to understand the value proposition of this initiative.

While I appreciate the idea and its vision, I think there are too many unknowns associated with the success of the project. The proposal could benefit from outlining a clear distribution plan and explaining the potential benefits to the DAO in greater detail.

This proposal seems like a bad use of treasury resources, a single proposal will likely not be enough to generate widespread $NOUNS adoption. The proposed quorum changes also seem overly complex and will likely result in further confusion. Perhaps an exploratory round or small grant would be more efficient and less risky for the DAO.

The proposal is lacking in specific detail about the impact of the increased liquidity, particularly in regards to how it will be used to expand or improve upon the functionalities and features of nouns.gg. This would have been especially helpful given the large amount of ETH requested.

I think $nouns has a lot of potential and could be a great way to onboard new users to the Nouns ecosystem. I love this creative use of the Nouns treasury.

While I support the Nouns ecosystem and the vision for $nouns, I am unsure if directly adding 75 ETH and 30 Nouns to the pool is the right approach. I would prefer to see the team explore alternative liquidity solutions for Base or even a more gradual approach to adding liquidity to this pool.

While I understand the argument for increasing liquidity for $nouns, there are no details on how this will actually benefit the Nouns ecosystem in the long term. The proposal only briefly mentions the potential to scale the token, and it is not clear how that will benefit Nouns or its users. This idea has the potential to be a powerful tool for Nouns. This proposal would be better served if the proposal included a detailed explanation of how this will benefit users and improve the Nouns ecosystem, and the authors should include further information about the goals for $nouns.

It is crucial for the future of the Nouns ecosystem that $nouns finds its footing. Providing this liquidity and enabling access to a central currency will have a huge positive impact on the community.

I am not sure that increasing liquidity is the right solution. We should be looking for creative ways to solve this problem that are not just funding a Uniswap Pool. How can we make $nouns more appealing for users without relying on the DAO?

This proposal could benefit from further discussion and consideration of the potential impact that adding liquidity will have on the broader Nouns community and other projects in the ecosystem. The proposal could include a more detailed explanation of how it intends to build a more inclusive and accessible community beyond NounsGG.

The proposal is not focused on creating something new. While the project does have goals, they aren't clear on what they will be doing to make it happen. I want to see more specific action items and goals for what the team plans to do to achieve the vision of the project.

I am not supportive of this proposal as written, and think we should focus on supporting more established projects that can help us generate revenue.

We’ve always had a preference for weird over boring. This feels like a rather mundane and uninspired idea for a large treasury request. I’m not sure it’s going to inspire new or additional contributions.

I like this concept of a central currency for Nouns GG, but this proposal lacks clarity on how the currency will be used beyond providing liquidity, which feels like a gamble. The proposal would be more compelling with a more detailed plan for how $nouns will be used to further the Nouns GG mission and build out a more comprehensive ecosystem.

The proposal is a bit too broad for the scope and is not properly tied to any existing community projects or initiatives. The proposed changes to $nouns may have a negative impact on the broader ecosystem.

I believe this proposal can make $nouns the heart of all Nouns subcommunities and bring more people to Nouns governance through a new token.

I really enjoy the idea, but would love to see an exploration of $NOUNS as a currency for different communities within the ecosystem, with a focus on building tools and onboarding to encourage adoption and a broader use of the token across the Nouniverse. It could involve a "Nouns Passport" or something similar for increased access across various DAO communities.

I don't think it's fair to give $nouns a liquidity boost without clarifying how those funds will be used to grow the token beyond just nouns.gg.

I am hesitant to move the Nouns treasury into this liquidity pool on Base. I would like to see more proof of concept and widespread adoption of $nouns before the DAO provides such a significant investment. We should focus on making the most of the tools that we have already built and proven. I would like to see this proposal brought forward again once $nouns has shown more traction.

I believe $nouns has the potential to drive community growth, and increasing its liquidity would be a great step towards that. I'm in favor of this proposal.