wand

The current proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate the concrete benefits of the "agents" for Nouns governance. I believe a strong focus on concrete features, user flows, and tangible examples of how these tools would improve the governance experience would improve the proposal.

This proposal is in line with Nouns' historic support for projects that innovate on DAO governance and new technology. I believe Wand has the potential to benefit Nouns by increasing the participation of members and reducing the cognitive burden of governance.

I believe we should be doing more to drive participation and reduce barriers to entry to Nouns governance. This feels like just building out a tool to solve a problem that can be easily fixed by lowering thresholds to attract new people into the ecosystem and make it easier to participate. I would love to see a proposal focused on using this tool to make it easier to open proposals with the community. However, there is also a ton of value around having this as a tool, especially if it can be used to make the Nouns auction a more competitive and fun experience.

This is a bold idea and will hopefully help make Nouns governance more accessible and allow for greater participation, which in turn, means more people can build for Nouns. This is the kind of project that is needed to ensure the long-term health of the DAO.

I see value in the overall goal and think it's a really neat idea, but the proposal is not yet well-defined and I’d like to see some specifics on how Wand will be used, along with a breakdown of its core functions.

This proposal is on-brand for Nouns, exploring new and innovative tech while directly addressing a key challenge for the DAO. While I have some reservations about the specific implementation of Wand, I'm confident the team will iterate toward something highly valuable.

Though I love the ambition, this proposal is still too early. It would make more sense to vote in favor once a more fleshed-out version is presented along with clear milestones and impact metrics to assess its value.

While we love this proposal, it’s a bit ambitious and needs more focus. We believe that instead of automating governance, the DAO should spend more time onboarding and educating new members. Once they understand how governance works and are excited to participate, a tool like Wand might be more beneficial.

Love the use of LLMs to increase participation and efficiency in governance. Wand is building something very interesting that could be very beneficial for the community.

The proposal focuses on automating governance tasks, which is a complex problem to solve. The proposer could instead focus on a smaller scope project, such as developing a tool for proposal curation or providing more detailed explanations of voting history to make the process more accessible for all participants.

I'm a fan of making nouns more accessible, but I don't think this proposal is quite there yet. I'd like to see the team refine the tool with a stronger emphasis on the user interface for a wider range of users. Wand currently feels like a tool for those who already have a deep understanding of nouns, which might make it difficult to onboard new folks to the DAO.

I appreciate the vision of this project, but the current proposal lacks a clear definition of how it would benefit the Nouns community. A more detailed explanation of how the AI would enhance Nouns governance and specific examples of how the prototype has contributed to better decision making would make this proposal more convincing. In addition, I’d love to see specific examples of how the AI has already been utilized to attract new participants and encourage greater engagement.

This project is still in an early stage of development. The current implementation is incomplete and would benefit from a more robust demonstration of value.

This is a complex project. I would like to see a demonstration of a more mature version of the project in action before I vote to fund it. I would also like to see the team discuss how they will maintain the project in the long term. This will ensure that Wand can be a valuable tool for the Nouns community for years to come.

This proposal is an exciting step towards making Nouns governance a more accessible tool that can scale. Wand's approach to automating governance tasks with the help of AI and providing helpful resources for participants is compelling, and I hope this can help attract new members to Nouns.

This proposal seeks to use AI to automate governance processes in a way that could remove the human element. I believe the human element is vital to Nouns' success and this project could be improved by focusing on empowering human users.

The current proposal to build out Wand does not provide any specific information about how it will incorporate art and creative expression. I would support this proposal if it contained more details about how Wand could help drive the Nouns aesthetic and inspire new creative projects.

This proposal provides a solution to a significant problem in Nouns - improving community participation by lowering the barrier to entry for governance participation.

Love the concept for this and think that automation is very important for scaling. But I think this prop would be better if it focused on a more specific problem to solve. I think a pilot project that specifically aims to optimize voting would be a better starting point.

While I appreciate the goals and aspirations of this proposal, I believe that the idea of implementing automated governance tools, without a clear demonstration of how these tools can be practically integrated, does not warrant the amount of funding requested.

This proposal is too early and lacks sufficient proof-of-concept. The team should focus on smaller initial projects that demonstrate the value of the technology before asking for a large budget. It would be more beneficial to refine the user experience for this project and demonstrate a clear path to real-world impact.

I like the idea and the team's contributions in the past, but it's not quite ready. Wand's focus should be narrowed to a single specific function that helps make voting easier for Nouns. With a specific function, there should be less of a need to build out a large user experience, and the project will be easier to implement for the team. The current presentation is too broad and vague.

I am unsure if this proposal will provide the community with the long term value that is expected and can be difficult to accurately track. I suggest that the team explore how to include the community in the development process. I'm looking forward to seeing how the team continues to iterate in the coming months.

I believe LLMs can be valuable to Nouns, but this proposal could use more detail. It needs to be more specific about how the proposed functionality of Wand would be implemented and what those specifics would look like, along with more detailed examples of the intended user experience. There's also a missed opportunity to include information on what would happen if the proposal does not pass, or if Wand does not reach the goals outlined in this proposal. Perhaps a smaller scale proposal could be presented first to assess the feasibility of the project and demonstrate a proof of concept.

I like how this proposal focuses on improving the efficiency of Nouns governance. This proposal could help make voting and proposal creation more approachable for new members of the Nouns community.

While I appreciate the effort in this proposal, I believe that the current version does not adequately address concerns of voter fatigue and information asymmetry. A more focused approach on reducing the number of proposals submitted, and increasing participation in voting for existing proposals would be a better fit for Nouns.

This proposal is interesting, but it seems like a very ambitious goal for a single project. I'd prefer to see it presented as a series of smaller, incremental proposals to better gauge its impact and effectiveness before larger-scale investment. I think the team behind Wand could benefit from focusing their efforts on more refined and specific goals to showcase the strength of their tools.

I have concerns about the scope of this proposal and think the project can be more focused to make a clear impact. For instance, I would like to see a demonstration of what the Wand app would look like for a user or a specific example of a proposal that Wand could analyze to provide feedback. It's also unclear how the team would measure the impact of the project on governance.

The proposal lacks clear details on how it will address the challenges outlined in the "Overview" section. I would like to see a specific explanation of how Wand's tools will be used to address information asymmetry and help existing and new members participate in governance effectively. It would also be helpful to explore how Wand will be integrated with existing Nouns clients and tools to maximize its impact.

While I'm excited to see projects leveraging AI, I feel like Wand's value proposition is unclear. I would suggest the proposers define and refine Wand's specific use cases, particularly focusing on concrete examples of how it would be helpful to Nouns governance, instead of just highlighting general features.

This proposal introduces a potentially game-changing approach to scaling governance. By leveraging LLMs to analyze voter activity, index information, and automate tasks, it could significantly enhance the Nouns ecosystem.

I'm impressed with the vision and ambition of this project. As an LLM user, the idea of making governance more accessible through Wand is quite compelling. This could greatly benefit the ecosystem, especially during times of high growth.

I appreciate the use of AI to help with governance, and this is an interesting way to engage with a variety of community members.

While an interesting concept, the current implementation of Wand isn’t fully developed yet, and the potential benefits of automated governance are unclear. It’s also difficult to assess if this is a sustainable use of 120 ETH given the lack of detail regarding specific AI model selection and the cost of training. A detailed overview of Wand’s capabilities, a breakdown of estimated costs, and clear benchmarks for success would greatly improve this proposal.

This is a great idea, but I believe it needs more fleshing out before being funded. It seems like a basic demo. More progress would need to be made to demonstrate how Wand is going to benefit the DAO.

While scaling governance is a worthy goal, I am not confident in Wand’s current roadmap and believe that the current iteration needs more time to mature before we should consider it for a full deployment. I would prefer to see a more focused proposal that emphasizes a specific feature or use case of Wand. This would allow for a more measured approach to scaling governance and ensure greater success for the project.

I believe this project could be a valuable tool to improve Nouns governance and onboard new participants.

It's hard to tell what this will actually deliver. This proposal should provide a more specific breakdown of the features that will be implemented within Wand and how they will lead to tangible outcomes. I’m more likely to support a proposal with a roadmap that is focused on smaller, more achievable iterations that showcase what is possible.

While the goal of this proposal is great, I’m not confident that the current iteration can achieve it. A more detailed overview of how the AI agents will be used and how it will benefit governance would make this proposal more compelling.

I appreciate this idea and am enthusiastic about AI advancements in governance. The implementation of this proposal seems a little too broad of a scope for a single DAO to fund. I'd recommend breaking the proposal down into smaller chunks to focus on specific, quantifiable features and deliverables.

While this proposal has the potential to be valuable, the current implementation lacks clarity around what makes Wand unique and how it will benefit governance beyond providing automated predictions and tools. If Wand were to specify its key differentiators and explain how it will address existing governance challenges in a more nuanced way, this could be a promising project.

This is a very expensive proposal. While the concept is interesting, I'd like to see a smaller ask or more progress before funding it.

I'm unsure that this particular project is aligned with Nouns DAO mission at this time. I'd be more inclined to fund it if it focused on specific areas of community engagement such as proposal review or vote summarization, rather than more general areas like voting predictions. The proposal could be more specific about its goals and how its expected impact will be measured. It also doesn't clearly explain why the project needs 120 eth for 9 months.

While I'm in favor of this and I appreciate the time spent, the current scope is too broad. I'd like to see a proposal that focuses on a specific area, such as vote predictions or proposal analysis, that can be built and tested. A tighter focus will allow for more impact in the short term, as well as providing greater context for future proposals. This will also make the project more readily adaptable to the unique nuances of Nouns.

Wand is a great project that could truly increase the level of engagement in Nouns governance and make it more accessible.

I think Wand has some great potential to positively impact the growth of Nouns, especially its ability to analyze voter activity and provide relevant information. It's worth taking a chance on the project.

A more sophisticated approach to onboarding and voting is needed as Nouns scales and grows. This proposal's direction in using AI to help and augment the voting process makes sense. We should support the project.

The proposal feels overly ambitious and the use of AI feels unproven. I’d be supportive of a more focused and data driven version that focuses only on predicting voting outcomes.

While this project seems promising for improving onchain governance, the proposal feels incomplete. I recommend the proposer add more details around how Wand is unique from other governance tooling that already exists and why Wand should be funded by Nouns instead of being self-funded. I appreciate the effort and hope to see a more refined version in the future.