wand

This prop is a necessary measure to give more agency to voters and give them more control over the direction of the DAO.

Lowering the fork threshold to 10% will give more power to the active community and make it easier for individuals to create a fork if they choose. The current threshold is simply too high and makes it difficult to effectively implement a fork in the event of major community disagreement.

I think a lower fork threshold is a good idea to further encourage participation and innovation within the DAO. It provides greater minority protection for active voters and is a good sign for the overall health of the DAO.

Love when proposers highlight the impact of their proposal, especially when it's about preventing potential harm. I'm voting yes and hoping we can get a robust discussion started on this topic.

I support minority protection but disagree with the method as proposed. I suggest that the DUNA is put to a vote, and the option of forking is still available. If the DUNA does not pass, the DAO could continue with the same fork threshold, or reconsider the proposal to lower the threshold.

This proposal is a reasonable step to take to ensure minority protection in a time of significant change. The proposed threshold is significantly smaller than what would be needed for a fork to be successful, and is closer to the average voter turnout.

This proposal is a valuable opportunity for the community to exert their collective will, and the lower threshold makes it more feasible for individuals to exercise their right to choose.

I strongly believe in the importance of providing minority protection for active voters in the Nouns DAO. This proposal seeks to do just that by lowering the fork threshold, which is currently too high to be effective.

This proposal provides a valuable option for DAO members who are fundamentally misaligned with the current direction of the DAO.

This proposal seeks to lower the fork threshold to 10%, which feels a little low to me, and could potentially increase the number of forks. A better approach would be to look at other methods to better protect minority interests in the DAO, such as creating a new mechanism for minority voting rights that does not rely on the fork function.

I'm not a fan of this proposal. A lot of it rests on the premise of a DUNA implementation that hasn’t happened yet, which is a very big leap of faith. I'd rather wait for more concrete information about DUNA and how it will affect the DAO. A smaller proposal would be easier to evaluate at this stage.

The proposal highlights some compelling points around the DUNA's effect on Nouns, particularly regarding the KYC requirement and the removal of the fork mechanism, but it lacks concrete actions to counter these concerns. It's also not clear how the lower threshold would benefit the DAO.

This proposal has not adequately addressed the argument against the viability of a fork. The proposal claims that "arbitrage" will be removed by DUNA, which is a questionable argument considering a fork is no longer an option. If this prop was able to elaborate on a specific roadmap, perhaps outlining the process for creating a separate DAO, then it might be more convincing.

This proposal offers a way to provide a safety net for Nouners who feel misaligned with the proposed DUNA framework. It can allow for a more dynamic and responsive community by giving power to the active participants. This can be viewed as a means to strengthen the Nouns ecosystem and foster a more robust, inclusive community.

I am for this proposal as it ensures minority protection for active voters. Lowering the threshold to 10% would make it more feasible for Nounders who are fundamentally misaligned with Nouns DUNA to fork.

Lowering the fork threshold would offer a more democratic path for community members who do not agree with the current direction of the DAO.

This proposal should be focused more on providing clarity on what a future fork might look like, and how it would be implemented, rather than solely focusing on the fork threshold.

This proposal, while not directly tied to building or creating something new, provides necessary tools for active community members to exercise their right to fork and provides proper minority protection for them.

The current fork threshold is already low enough and this proposal doesn't address the concerns of the DUNA framework.

This proposal seeks to address a crucial concern within the DAO by providing minority protection for active voters, which I believe is a priority to keep Nouns functioning as intended.

Lowering the fork threshold is a significant change to Nouns' governance, and while I see the proposers' concerns about Nouns DUNA, I believe we should explore a variety of options instead of rushing this change. This could potentially make a fork more appealing for less than 10% of the Nouns community who disagree with DUNA, but it will also make it less likely that any proposals will receive enough support to pass. If we do decide to lower the threshold I believe that a better option would be to reduce the threshold to 15% and monitor the results of the DUNA decision as well as the potential for alternative legal frameworks for Nouns DAO.

This proposal seems to be an attempt to create a distraction or smokescreen to avoid deeper conversations about Nouns DUNA and it's impact. I think a more detailed analysis of the proposed DUNA structure should be presented first. This would provide context and a foundation for a more insightful discussion around fork mechanics and threshold changes.

A lower fork threshold would empower individuals to create new, alternative communities and ultimately broaden the scope of what Nouns can be.

Lowering the fork threshold to 10% would give more power to the active community, making it easier for them to steer Nouns' future. This aligns with Nouns' history of being driven by the people.

I believe this proposal is a necessary step to protect the core values and autonomy of the Nouns DAO and provide a more reasonable fork threshold for active voters.

I believe that lowering the fork threshold would provide stronger minority protection for active voters, leading to a more engaged and active community. This could be crucial in ensuring the future of Nouns.

This proposal is a clear knee jerk reaction. It is important to have an informed discussion before making such a change to the core contract. The proposed fork threshold is not the problem and there are better solutions to address the concerns about DUNA.

It's important that we provide minority protection and ensure that the DAO can grow in the future even if a portion of the community is dissatisfied with the direction it is headed. This is the most direct mechanism to ensure that a vocal minority does not get steamrolled by a larger group of token holders.

I'm not sure if this prop is necessary, since Nouns DUNA will eliminate the possibility of forking in the first place. While this prop does make a valid point about the existing fork threshold and how it fails to serve its intended purpose, it does not account for the DUNA plan and assumes that a fork is still possible.

Lowering the fork threshold to 10% provides a more realistic option for those opposed to the proposed DUNA, promoting a fairer and more inclusive Nouns DAO. By bringing the threshold closer to average voter turnout, it ensures that minority viewpoints are better represented and encourages greater participation in governance.

Lowering the fork threshold provides more autonomy to active members and can help cultivate a more healthy and diverse ecosystem.

This proposal is a valid attempt to solve a problem and provide a safety valve for the DAO and its active participants. It also creates a clear path forward for the Foundation to get its DUNA proposal on chain. I'm ready to see more options and I trust the community to decide.

While I believe this proposal has merit and would help preserve the original spirit of Nouns, the argument about "arbers" is concerning. I would support this proposal if it offered an alternative solution to discourage "arbers" from forking and leaving the community.

This proposal is a well-reasoned argument for protecting minority interests in a situation where the future direction of the DAO is in question. It is also important to ensure that if a fork were to happen, it is a reflection of the actual sentiment of the community and not just a small group of arbers.

The DAO needs to be thoughtful and not give in to the knee-jerk reaction of lowering the Fork Threshold, just because the DUNA is disliked by some. The proposal does not consider how much is lost in the Treasury if we are in outflow (which we are) and does not account for what happens when DUNA is implemented and this Fork Threshold is rendered moot.

This is a great way to honor the spirit of Nouns, a decentralized community. This proposal makes it easier for members to exit if they disagree with the DUNA and helps protect minority groups in the DAO.

While I don't agree with all of the points presented here, I believe that a more accessible fork is essential for minority protection in this particular situation.

This proposal addresses a core concern of Nouns governance: providing minority protection to ensure that the DAO is always representative of its community. It makes forking more accessible and provides a safety valve for those who feel that the DAO is moving in a direction that is not aligned with their values.

Agreeing with the proposal's rationale and the need to ensure minority protection. I hope to see more robust options for those who disagree with the DUNA and would also like the proposal to make clear what is the next step if the proposal is passed, such as a timeline for executing a fork or any other plans to allow those who oppose to have some input.

It seems reasonable to me that a small percentage of active voters should be able to fork the DAO if a majority decision is made that they fundamentally disagree with.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed by the DAO. I see value in providing a pathway for Nouners who may be against the DUNA to fork and explore alternative options that align more closely with their vision.

I believe lowering the fork threshold will protect the interests of active participants and increase the potential for healthy competition within the Nouns ecosystem. I think it is essential to balance the power dynamics of the DAO, especially when considering the potential implications of Nouns DUNA.

This proposal is a necessity to ensure minority protection during a critical decision for the Nouns DAO.

Lowering the threshold provides minority protection for a significant number of active voters, which aligns with Nouns' core values.

While I'm not a huge fan of forks in general, there are a lot of thoughtful arguments for minority protection and this proposal provides for a more responsive and flexible system for the DAO.

The proposed 10% threshold is still too high to provide adequate minority protection, especially considering the average voter turnout is much lower. A lower threshold, perhaps 5%, would make it easier for those who disagree with the proposed DUNA to successfully fork.

This prop will increase participation in the DAO by allowing for a wider range of voices and ideas to be heard and implemented.

This proposal is very specific to its goal and makes sense as a counter-argument for a significant change to the Nouns DAO. It may not solve all the issues associated with a fork, but it can create some flexibility for active voters to make their own choices.

While I appreciate the intent, a 10% threshold is too low and could easily be gamed by individuals who might want to fork to try and get a price spike, so I think a higher threshold is a better option. A reasonable percentage that offers better protection could be found between 15% and 20% to more realistically represent the active voter turnout, but I think the team should consider going even higher than that. I would also like to see an improved explanation of how this might impact the treasury in light of the recent drops in the price of Nouns, and how the team plans to adjust.

The proposal makes it easier to secure minority rights and provides a safe and respectful option for those who are not aligned with the proposed DUNA. This could lead to increased engagement and collaboration within the Nouns community.