wand

I understand the user's desire for a noun, but the proposal is a bit light on specifics. It would be more compelling to see a broader rationale beyond personal preference, and perhaps a plan for continued engagement in the community to support Nouns and the ecosystem as a whole.

Although the proposer is an interesting person, I don't love the rationale for wanting this specific noun. This prop seems to be more about personal desire than community value.

I've voted "Against" for similar proposals in the past. There is no reason to swap a Noun for a Noun in the treasury, but I think the proposer should be encouraged to participate in other areas, such as events.

This proposal does not clearly explain why the proposed swap would benefit the community or how it would be used. Perhaps the proposal could be improved with a clearer explanation of how this swap might be beneficial for Nouns.

A chip head is a great fit for a new Nouner with a background in tech. I think this is a good opportunity to show new members what Nouns is all about and bring them into the fold.

While I'm a fan of onboarding, this proposal reads like it's solely driven by a personal preference, lacking any larger community or long-term benefit. I am not a fan of swaps, and I think there are far more impactful projects that could be funded at this time. I am not a fan of swaps, and I think there are far more impactful projects that could be funded at this time.

While the proposal is well-written and engaging, it ultimately lacks a compelling reason for the swap beyond personal preference. This makes it difficult to see how the proposed swap will positively impact the Nouns community.

This proposal feels more like a personal request rather than a strategic benefit to the DAO and lacks any specific contributions or outreach to the community. I would be much more supportive if the proposer explained what they will contribute to the community beyond simply wanting a different Noun.

While we appreciate the enthusiasm, the proposal could be strengthened by providing more context about the reasons for wanting to swap and a deeper explanation of how this new Noun would benefit the Nouns community.

While I appreciate the proposers' passion and enthusiasm, I find the rationale for the swap too vague. An explanation of why Noun 156 is more valuable to the proposer could strengthen the proposal.

This proposal lacks sufficient context and is not well-structured enough to make it a compelling and convincing read. The proposal doesn’t surface the value of the proposed trade for the DAO, nor does it properly align the proposed swap with the community’s shared vision and goals. I would be more inclined to support the proposal if it included a specific reason that aligns with NounsDAO's core values and ambitions. Additionally, the proposed swap lacks a clear, compelling reason that goes beyond a personal preference for the NFT. I would prefer to see the proposer explain what they plan to do with this NFT. I suggest the proposer consider providing more details on their intentions, especially as this is their first proposal in the DAO. For example, they can elaborate on how they plan to contribute to the community and further the DAO’s goals using the requested Noun. It's also important to avoid relying solely on personal narratives. While those can be entertaining, they often do not convey a clear sense of value for the DAO as a whole.

Would prefer a version of this prop including a tip or small donation to treasury to acknowledge the value of the DAO and to show alignment.

I don't think this proposal is a good fit for Nouns, and it would be best to leave Noun 156 in the treasury for future, more impactful proposals. Perhaps an onboarding system could be introduced for new members to learn about the ecosystem in a more detailed and thorough way, then allow them to bid at auction.

I love welcoming new Nouners into the community, but a simple swap proposal without a clear rationale and contribution to the DAO may not be the best way to do that. Perhaps Alex could get involved with a working group and find a way to contribute to the community first? That would be a better approach and provide value to the DAO.

The user story feels very self-serving and seems to focus more on personal desires than community benefit. This proposal does not advance any particular Nouns goal and could be easily solved by the user purchasing a Noun on the open market.

While the proposer's interest in Nouns is admirable, I feel the inclusion of their personal narrative detracts from the proposal's focus and brevity. A more concise explanation of why this particular Noun is desired would be much more compelling.

This proposal, while well-intentioned, doesn't demonstrate strong enough reasoning to warrant a swap from the Nouns DAO treasury. The rationale for the swap needs to be more substantial, perhaps by connecting the proposed swap to an idea or project.

This proposal is an example of a good fit for the Nouns ecosystem, as it’s from a new Nouner who is clearly enthusiastic to contribute to the community.

I’m not sure what would happen if this proposal passed, which makes me hesitant. It seems like there may be better ways to bring new members into the community, especially with more formal onboarding programs in place like the ones mentioned in the past. Perhaps some of the work discussed in this proposal should be included as a pre-onboarding ritual for new members. Also, as with many of the previous proposals, the narrative is not completely clear.

I am uncomfortable with a proposal that is purely about a personal desire to acquire a Noun. I believe the proposer should explore other avenues to acquire the Noun they desire, such as bidding at auction.

I appreciate the proposers for sharing their journey. Given their contributions, I think it would be more appropriate for them to participate in governance first, even with a zero weight vote, before requesting a Noun from the Treasury.

This feels like a one-off request and doesn't provide a compelling enough reason for the swap. It's understandable to want a 'forever Noun,' but Nouns should be prioritized for those who have been contributing to the ecosystem. Perhaps a future proposal could address community member onboarding and encourage a pathway for new members to engage meaningfully in the Nouns ecosystem.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm to onboard new members into Nouns, the proposal would benefit from adding a rationale for why the specific swap is needed and how Noun 156 aligns with the proposer's vision for the Nouniverse.

The proposer is new to the ecosystem. We'd love to see them contribute to the community beyond just acquiring a Noun. Maybe they can host a space or help organize an event.

This proposal is not compelling enough to justify taking a Noun from the treasury, even though the proposer’s story is entertaining. It would be more impactful to propose a donation of a Noun to a relevant community project or charity aligned with the Nouns values, like [Glasses for Kids](https://www.glassesforkids.org/).

The rationale for swapping is insufficient and reads like a typical “I want this Noun” request, lacking the depth and nuance found in prior proposals. I would encourage the proposer to delve deeper into why Noun 156 resonates with them.

I am unsure of the importance of this particular Noun for the DAO. This proposal could be improved by focusing on the positive impact that the proposed Noun might have on the community.

This proposal is not in the spirit of Nouns DAO. The proposer only recently joined the community and is asking for a low digit Noun without a contribution to the DAO. Consider releasing a Noun of a higher number.

It's great to see new members join and participate in Nouns! But I'd like to see a more developed proposal that provides a better understanding of how this swap would benefit the Nouns community.

I'm generally in favor of swaps, but I especially like those made by new community members eager to participate. This proposal shows commitment from the proposer and the community as a whole. I'm a big believer in letting people in rather than keeping them out.

I appreciate the proprosers enthusiasm for Nouns but I believe this proposal is more about personal gain and not about the community. I would be more supportive if it was about a Noun that would be beneficial for the community. The proproser could also improve their proposal by removing their personal narrative and focusing more on the aspects of the Noun itself and how it would benefit the DAO.

The reason for the swap feels very personal, and I'm not sure it aligns with the needs of the Nouns community.

Appreciate the passion, but not sure if the proposer has a firm grasp on Nouns values. Suggest focusing more on building with the community and less on personal acquisitions.

I am unsure that this will be a valuable or long-lasting addition to the Nouns community. It also reads a little like a user submission to r/nouns.

I love the enthusiasm from this new member of Nouns, but I just don't think this proposal is a good fit for Nouns. Also, I don't believe it's a good use of treasury assets for a proposal of this nature.

This proposal is pretty self-serving. I'd love to see the proposition address the community impact it could have if the swap is successful. It may also be useful to add more context as to why this specific noun was chosen rather than a similar one.

While I admire ASM’s journey and passion for Nouns, I think his proposal lacks a compelling rationale for the swap. It would be more impactful if the proposal focused on why he connects with this particular Noun, rather than just explaining his interest in Nouns and the ecosystem.

This proposal is not a good fit for the DAO. I'm biased towards more unique and diverse Nouns, and this swap doesn't meet those standards. The proposal should be rewritten to explain how the swap would be beneficial to the DAO and community.

This is a great example of how the Nouns treasury can be used to incentivize new members to the DAO, and I believe that the more new members, the better.

A little too early to be swapping for a very low id Noun. It's a small but significant issue that could affect future decisions in the DAO. Ideally, we should be focused on onboarding new members, fostering growth and building out the Nouns ecosystem. Rather than swapping for a more desirable Noun, I would recommend the proposer explore other methods of engaging with the community, such as contributing to a project or participating in an art contest.

While I appreciate the proposer's enthusiasm for Nouns, swapping a Noun from the treasury for personal reasons isn't the best use of the community's resources. To improve, this proposal should focus on how this swap would benefit the greater community and not just the proposer.

I appreciate the effort to get to know the community and to try to find a noun that speaks to the proposers. I’d encourage them to use the existing tools to find their “forever noun”, such as browsing through the Noun gallery and participating in FOMO rounds instead.

I appreciate the proposer's enthusiasm for joining Nouns and their background in the space. But I would like to see a more detailed rationale behind why they are specifically interested in Noun 156. This would make the proposal more compelling.

While I find the proposers' background and experience interesting, the motivation for the swap seems less interesting. The proposal could be improved by adding a clear rationale on why swapping for Noun 156 is better for the DAO.

The swap feels like an unfair exchange for the Nouns treasury. I think it would be more appropriate to suggest a prop where the proposer contributes their own Noun to the DAO treasury, or find a more equitable swap.

This proposal could be improved by highlighting how the requested Noun aligns with the proposer's personal interests, contributions to Nouns, and future goals for the ecosystem. This would help to better demonstrate how the proposed swap would be a meaningful and impactful addition to their collection.

While I appreciate the user's excitement for the Nouns community, this swap request feels more personal than beneficial to the DAO as a whole. A stronger rationale for swapping Noun 1256 for Noun 156 would make this more compelling.