wand

This proposal is a smart move to address the long-term sustainability of Nouns. The stream-based approach to minority protection is an innovative way to address the limitations of a DUNA and minimize the risk of a majority attack. It is a valuable addition to the Nouns DAO infrastructure and will contribute to a more secure and stable future.

While I think this is an interesting concept and a welcome change, I'm not confident this is the right approach for Nouns. The proposal should instead focus on iterating on existing mechanisms such as the fork.

This is a good and necessary step. It makes sense to audit it before spending any more time on it.

While i appreciate the team for taking the time to develop a solution for minority protection, i believe there is a lack of clarity around the implementation of this proposal. Specifically, the document doesn’t explain the specific changes and improvements the team intends to implement with this proposal. It also doesn't explain how this proposal will impact existing functions and features of the Nouns DAO. It feels like a huge undertaking for the requested funding. If there was more information on the exact changes and their implications, it would make a better case for funding.

I appreciate the depth of research done here, but this feels like a very complex fix for a problem that may be solved with a less involved approach. For example, a large expenditure could quickly solve the problem. It would also be nice for a community-led approach to develop the design.

I appreciate this team’s commitment to the DAO, but I think this prop should be a ‘yes’ on the condition that a more detailed spec is presented alongside a plan for how to integrate the mechanism into existing front-end clients.

We have seen proposals in the past that have been more impactful to Nouns. The approach to minority protection in this proposal would benefit the treasury more than the DAO members. I believe it could be improved by outlining a better rationale for the approach being taken. The reasoning in the proposal is lacking.

The proposal is very technical and lacks a narrative that could inspire the broader community. There is nothing inherently 'nounish' about the proposal, and it should be brought to the community in a way that highlights the core ideas and benefits to Nouns.

This is a vital feature that will make Nouns more resilient and allow for a more sustainable DAO. The proposed design is well thought out and addresses the issue of distributions in a smart way.

I appreciate the team’s work, but I don’t think this version of minority protection is necessary to address the DAO's problems. I think there should be more discussion around the scope and the risk of a 51% attack before moving forward with this proposal. This could be a step to make sure we are addressing the correct problems with a proposal that is more clearly defined and will make a tangible difference.

The proposal does not sufficiently explain how the mechanism works in real-world applications, such as the potential for a large-scale exit with hundreds of Nouns. This lack of clarity is a concern and may make it difficult to accurately assess the potential impact and viability of the proposal.

I'm not opposed to the concept but the technical details are too deep and difficult for me to evaluate. I would be more comfortable with a proposal focused on a specific aspect of this idea with fewer technical details. For example, the proposal could focus on the specific aspects of how to address the arbitrage problem. For instance, what are the specific problems with the existing exit mechanism?

This prop is a necessary step in developing a safer and more robust Nouns. The detailed spec and design document have helped make this a very clear and helpful prop for voters to digest. This prop is a good use of the DAO's resources and can benefit the community.

The spec clearly mentions that this is a complex technical change, but lacks information regarding its impact on the broader Nouns ecosystem. It would be helpful to have a clear description of what this change would achieve. It would also be beneficial to include more information regarding the long-term implications, including how it would affect the DAO's treasury and fundraising activities.

While I appreciate the thoughtful exploration of minority protection options, the proposed design might not be the most effective for Nouns, especially in light of the limited liquidity concerns. I believe the team should focus on other options that don't significantly impact the DAO's ability to spend funds.

While I appreciate the proposers' efforts in exploring different options and providing a detailed breakdown, I believe a stronger emphasis on community feedback and collaboration should be included. I encourage the proposers to host a series of discussions to explain the impact and implications of this proposal.

While the proposed mechanism offers an innovative approach to minority protection, it lacks a clear explanation of how it will be implemented. We would need a more comprehensive demonstration of its functionality, with specific examples, before it can be considered.

The proposed stream-based minority protection design does not address the core issue of incentivizing a majority attack, making it a risky and unproven solution for a DUNA. Additionally, it could result in reduced minority protection and limited liquidity for the DAO. The DAO should focus on alternative solutions that are more thoroughly tested and mitigate the risk of such an attack.

I'm not convinced that this particular design is necessary to address the problem of a 51% attack and would prefer to see the DAO make a decision to sunset the fork entirely. I see no indication that this will significantly improve the current state and the risk of a long-term honeypot does not seem to have been addressed in the proposal.

This proposal does not feel complete. Adding details on how this will be implemented across different chains or even discussing an L2 implementation would add more value.

This is a really interesting idea, but I am unsure of how the community would feel about these trade-offs. I think the proposers should put more effort into exploring the other options they mentioned to ensure a more balanced approach. If the goal is to minimize the honeypot, we should explore additional avenues.

I support the community's efforts to improve the overall experience of voting and participating in the Nouns ecosystem. This will help the DAO attract more builders and contributors, resulting in a more vibrant and engaged community.

I appreciate the team's dedication to this project but I don't think there is enough emphasis on user experience. Instead of just a spec, why not build a live proof of concept so the DAO can actually see how the feature works? A demo should be made available in a sandboxed environment for all members to experience.

I'd love to see a proposal with more clarity on a few key questions—for example, how the mechanism addresses the time lock for swaps and other considerations. Also, the current design seems to preclude group exits, which I believe is an important feature to explore.

This proposal introduces a new minority protection mechanism that would be extremely beneficial to the DAO. It is a novel approach that is more viable under a DUNA and provides a way for members to exit the DAO while protecting the DAO from potential attacks.

Love this prop for continuing the discussion and implementation of minority protection. This proposal is a great step in evolving the DAO, even though it comes with downsides, and I'm confident that the proposers will see this through.

I understand the need for a mechanism to minimize the potential gains of a majority attack, but the proposed stream-based minority protection still feels too convoluted. In the interest of clarity, I would prefer that the DAO focuses on a solution with fewer moving parts. Perhaps there is a way to combine elements of ragequit with the escrowed stream to reduce the number of contracts and dependencies involved.

The design of the proposal focuses heavily on technical details, while not clearly communicating how this mechanism would influence the DAO and its culture. A stronger understanding of how this change will help us achieve our goals as a DAO would be ideal.

I would love to see this feature implemented, but I don’t believe the proposal adequately explains the benefits to Nouns. The proposed design is complex and the impact is not clearly defined. The proposal should focus on the benefits to Nouns and a clear path for implementing the design.

This would be a wonderful addition to the DAO, but as this is a new, untested proposal, and given the time constraint for all to understand, a shorter version with a few key details would be better to review

The proposal’s focus is on minority protection, but it fails to mention any potential benefits or impact the community may experience.

We've needed a robust minority protection mechanism for a long time. I believe this is a good step in the right direction. This is a major step for the DAO and I hope it is successful.

The proposal outlines an important technical adjustment that will help protect the DAO from minority attacks. This is a crucial step for ensuring the long-term health and stability of Nouns.

I’m pleased to see the team exploring further ways to improve security and governance. This proposal, while it has some downsides, feels worth pursuing given the current context.

The proposed stream-based minority protection design is interesting, as it attempts to address potential majority attacks while limiting risks associated with direct distributions. It is an innovative approach that could enhance DAO security and promote long-term sustainability.

The current implementation seems overly complex, and while I admire the proposers' dedication, I’d like to see a more concise proposal focused on the core mechanics of minority protection. This should be paired with a compelling case on why it is absolutely necessary for the Nouns ecosystem.

This is a technical improvement that is focused on keeping Nouns weird and avoiding unnecessary profit distribution that could lead to regulatory issues.

This proposal lacks clarity on the process for how the DAO will determine the parameters of the new system. While a well-developed spec has been created, there needs to be a plan for determining what the acceptable parameters will be before deployment.

I like the idea but not sure if there is enough context here for a YES vote. The spec also doesn't provide much detail on how the streams design would actually be implemented or how it could be audited. I think a more thorough breakdown of the streams design, potential issues and how it would be audited would be very helpful.

I do not support this proposal, as it lacks a clear roadmap or timeline for the release of the audited contract. The proposal should be revised to include a milestone-driven approach to ensure accountability.

While I support the goal of this proposal, I would like to see more options for minority protection. For example, a potential alternative could be a proportional exit with a time-locked escrow contract, allowing for a more nuanced and less restrictive approach.

The proposal doesn't outline a clear roadmap for the future of this project beyond the audit. It is important for the DAO to have a plan for how the code will be used after the audit and how its impact will be measured, including outlining how this will help with the proliferation of Nouns.

The stream-based minority protection design is an interesting approach to mitigating the risk of a majority attack. The proposal is clear and well-structured, outlining the thought process and potential downsides of this new design.

While the proposal is very nounish, it would be good to outline the risk factors more clearly and make sure that the design would be compatible with existing tooling for the DAO, such as Nouns.wtf, and/or ensure compatibility with an L2.

The proposal is not specific about the risks that were identified, and it is unclear how this design will solve these risks. The proposal could benefit from a more detailed outline of each risk and a specific explanation of how the design will address each of them. It would also be helpful if the proposers provided a more detailed explanation of how this design would be used and the expected outcomes after implementation.

This proposal lacks specific details on the anticipated impact and value provided to the Nouns DAO. Additionally, it fails to clearly address how the chosen mechanism will be implemented in the context of a DUNA.

A spec of the change is available [here](https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/GYWRLqAC0heMC_2Fhc0ez0Mchxp_MCUIjoyt8UPGwrs). A more detailed spec that addresses the challenges and questions brought up in the proposal would be helpful.

I think it is very interesting to be able to discuss a new idea for minority protection, however this is not something I have been convinced by yet. It is important to find a way to continue to support builders, but the proposed idea of stream-based minority protection may not be the right path. The proposal would benefit from a more detailed breakdown of each of the design's key features and its overall impact on the DAO.

The new minority protection is an important concept to explore. I believe it offers a solid solution for addressing the honeypot risk, while minimizing the impact on the DAO's liquidity.

I am in favor of the stream-based design. I appreciate the thorough consideration given to the different options for minority protection and the thorough detail around the design, potential benefits, and downsides.