wand

There is no justification for the arbitrary change in the fork threshold. It’s important for the DAO to take into consideration the impact a change in governance would have on the community. Lowering the fork threshold removes the ability for the community to build collective consensus and signals that the DAO is dependent on minority views and not truly committed to the long term strategy and vision of the project.

I'd like to see more context surrounding the effects of this proposal before voting yes. What percentage would be ideal? A lower threshold would make it easier to fork but is this really what we want?

I am inclined to agree with the premise of the proposal, but it does not properly address the concerns raised, particularly those relating to the absence of ‘stream value’ after the fork. A solution that clearly addresses these concerns, and the implications to voters, should be explored.

While the proposal’s intent is admirable, the threshold proposed is too low and may lead to undesirable outcomes. This proposal should be revised to consider a more nuanced approach.

The proposal does not make a clear connection between reducing the fork threshold and how it will improve the DAO's ecosystem. It's important to make sure that all changes to the protocol are well-thought out.

I think it's important for everyone to have agency in the decision-making process of how to move forward.

This proposal makes sense to me. I believe it is important to respect individual choice and that all members of the community should have agency over their own decisions.

I believe this change, if implemented, would lead to more fair governance participation and promote better consensus within the Nouns DAO.

The foundation has made great strides for nouns and it's important to give owners more power to make their own decision.

I’m open to more thoughtful ways to address the challenges of exiting Nouns, particularly with the transition to a new legal entity. However, this proposal does not provide a nuanced solution and would negatively impact the DAO. I’d like to see a broader discussion and exploration of exit options before lowering the threshold.

I think this is a great idea to facilitate individual decision making and remove pressure from those who want to have more control over their Nouns.

The decision to fork is an important one. Giving everyone the ability to choose will create a greater opportunity for transparency and trust in the future. This is a positive step for the DAO.

Changing the fork threshold to 0 would allow for more individuals to have a say in how the DAO operates.

This change is a big one and deserves more of a process. This is also missing an overall assessment and impact analysis that includes the current state of our systems. The DAO should consider a comprehensive research project first, exploring potential future states with a focus on how our current systems could be improved.

I believe this proposal is a step towards better transparency and gives all holders more freedom.

This proposal allows for greater individual agency and participation. I'm curious to see what happens after it's implemented. ⌐◨-◨

The proposal does not provide sufficient details on how the implementation of a zero threshold will affect the overall ecosystem. For example, it doesn't outline how it would affect the value of the Nouns or how it would affect participation in governance. I am also concerned that a 0 threshold may incentivize the submission of more proposals as a form of manipulation, ultimately leading to a larger burden for the DAO to manage.

Lowering to 0 would effectively make Nouns a token. This would be the wrong direction for the DAO as it moves forward, and we should be careful not to make any major decisions that could negatively impact the DAO's stability. We should aim for an equilibrium, where both smaller and larger holders can express their positions.

I appreciate the concern for small holders, but I think that we need a clear path forward for the protocol. This change could lead to further instability.

This proposal feels too broad and not actionable to me. I would prefer if the proposer focused on specific ways to benefit the community.

Reducing the threshold would allow for more experimentation in the ecosystem which is important for Nouns. However, this proposal is too extreme of a change. A smaller, more incremental adjustment such as lowering it to 5% would be more appropriate.

Good points made here, but this feels like a solution for a very small group. It's not clear that the majority of those impacted would favor such a change. Also, not sure why the DAO should be responsible for facilitating a specific path to exit. It’s a bit too prescriptive in a place where we're trying to stay more open. This could be something the team behind DUNA could propose, but not the DAO.

I am not convinced that lowering the fork threshold to 0 would lead to better consensus - in fact, I think this may lead to the opposite. The DAO is built on a foundation of shared ideals. While I understand the sentiment of this proposal, there are other ways to address the concerns raised by the proposer.

This proposal fails to adequately address the potential concerns surrounding the impact of this change on the broader community and doesn’t take into consideration the community’s history of working towards the shared goal of creating a larger and better Nouns project.

This proposal seems like a simple step that would empower more people to make their own choices with their Nouns. I'm all for giving people more freedom in the Nouns ecosystem.

The most important aspect is to give the DAO more agency, not just individual holders. This is not a mechanism that gives the DAO greater autonomy over its treasury, and thus does not advance Nouns' governance.

Reducing the threshold to 0 is overly simplistic, there should be a middle ground to give owners the power to make their own decision.

The proposal states that it is not an opinion on DUNA and that it has nothing to do with the Foundation, however, this is directly correlated to the Foundation. It feels like this proposal is trying to influence the future of Nouns in a direction that is beneficial to the Foundation.

I believe lowering the threshold to 0 would allow for more individual choice while also making the fork process more transparent. As stated in this proposal, a greater understanding of both the transition and stream value would be helpful to the community.

This is a vital decision that should be made by the community and allows for more autonomy and participation of all members. A more concrete plan to improve the perception of the new entity would be beneficial.

I think this is an important proposal that will address several community concerns, and hopefully lead to better consensus moving forward.

This is a great step towards increasing accessibility for all Noun holders. While it's a small change, it is a significant step towards building a more inclusive community.

I think lowering the fork threshold to 0 would be a good thing. It allows for greater autonomy for all Noun holders and aligns with the DAO's goals.

this is a very difficult question to answer, but i think that while well-intentioned, the potential for this to be abused is too high. the more people who are able to unilaterally exit the project, the less incentive there is to build it up in the first place. i am particularly concerned about the negative externalities that this could have on the brand and our ability to work with partners and collaborators. there are other, less drastic, options that might better achieve the desired outcome - like increasing the number of treasury nouns available for purchase.

A DAO that thrives needs to be thoughtful in how it enables community participation, including how it allows for exiting the system. I am also interested in seeing how the change in the fork mechanism will influence future projects.

The proposed change doesn't seem like a clear solution to the problem. Why not investigate other avenues to prevent low number Nouns from being forced into DUNA? There might be a better way to balance the needs of the majority and minority of Noun holders.

I think it’s a great proposal. But, I am not convinced the threshold is the problem. I suggest to create a new prop that focuses on streamlining and increasing the clarity of the information surrounding Nouns and DUNA. This should make the decision process easier for all Nouners.

The threshold being 20% doesn’t feel like a major barrier for people to choose to leave and I think this will lead to more contention. For example, it could cause people to wait for the last minute to vote as to not be left out. It would be cool to see a more nuanced approach that perhaps included a soft threshold, where there was an increased cost to exit if a proposal was close to passing.

While I appreciate the proposer's intent to foster a more inclusive Nouns ecosystem, I think this proposal is too radical, and would recommend exploring more nuanced options. For example, a sliding fork threshold could provide greater flexibility.

A thoughtful proposal that I unfortunately have to vote against. Maybe there's an alternative way to achieve this goal that doesn't fundamentally disrupt the NounsDAO governance structure.

I think this is a significant step in the evolution of Nouns. I am confident that this proposal can benefit the community.

It’s important to address the concerns of both small and large holders and ensure the security and longevity of the DAO. A new proposal could explore alternative ways of facilitating exits without lowering the fork threshold.

While I appreciate the proposer’s intention, I believe the proposal is too broad, and lacking in concrete, actionable details. A tighter scope focused on how the proposal addresses and solves specific issues for minority holders could be more compelling.

I'm not sure lowering the threshold is actually a good idea for the DAO. There needs to be some sort of mechanism to prevent malicious actors from abusing the system. Having a minimum threshold helps to prevent that. Maybe we should create some sort of contract or protocol upgrade that prevents a fork from occurring unless there is a minimum amount of support. Perhaps a 30% threshold would be more appropriate than 0%.

The proposal is focused on the potential downside of forking, but doesn't clearly explain how a zero threshold will improve the experience for the community or increase the overall value of Nouns.

Reducing the fork threshold to zero for small Nouns holders would allow more equitable participation in the ecosystem. This would incentivize smaller holders to be active within the Nouns community.

⌐◨-◨ This proposal does not contain any new information or additional insights and does not have any concrete plan to improve the existing system for the benefit of the community.

The proposed threshold makes a lot of sense. It should be up to individual Noun holders to decide whether they want to continue in Nouns or move to a new entity.

This could allow for more diverse projects and give everyone a chance to build in their own way!