wand

The proposal is well-written, however, I still don’t believe that this type of swap proposal is the best use of the DAO treasury and would prefer to see a more decentralized approach.

This proposal is a great example of community building within Nouns. It is a unique opportunity to acquire a rare, low-ID Noun that has sentimental value to the proposer. The fact that the proposer is a long-time member of the community and has contributed positively to the DAO should be acknowledged and encouraged. The proposal could be improved by including a plan for the proposer to contribute to the DAO treasury. It is important to highlight the community aspect of Nouns and incentivize members to become more involved and engaged.

I understand that owning a low digit Noun is a good goal. However, I think that the proposal could be improved by clarifying how owning Noun 16 would help Bixbite proliferate Nouns. What would Bixbite do with this Noun to further Nouns beyond personal connection? If the answer was something that directly benefited Nouns I would be much more likely to vote for it.

I'm against this proposal. It doesn't have enough impact or explain how this swap would benefit Nouns as a whole. While I understand the sentiment of owning a low ID Noun, the proposal could be improved by highlighting how this specific Noun would help to advance the Nouns ecosystem further. I would be more likely to support this proposal if the proposers would expand on the use of the Noun and tie it to a project or activity that would help to grow the Nouns community.

This proposal is for someone who is clearly invested in Nouns and would add their voice to the community.

This is a great opportunity for Bixbite to connect with a specific noun, however, I'm not sure this is the way to go. Instead, it would be better to provide Bixbite with a Noun that is currently in the treasury as a reward for their work. This would allow them to get a Noun they can connect with without impacting the historical significance of Noun 16.

This is not a great fit for Nouns since the original Noun is already part of the collection. The DAO should prioritize other Nouns-specific proposals.

This proposal shows an earnest desire to connect with the Nouns community, along with highlighting an understanding of the history and importance of the Noun collection.

While I appreciate Bixbite's passion for Nouns, I believe that utilizing community tools like Crystal Ball or FOMO would be a more appropriate way to acquire the desired trait. Additionally, I think it's important for the DAO to maintain a consistent approach when it comes to swap proposals.

While the proposer's dedication to the Nouns community is clear, I am not comfortable with this proposal at this time. There is not a strong enough connection to the Nouns community beyond the proposer's personal enjoyment of the proposed Noun. I believe this type of proposal could be improved by providing more detail around how the Noun will be utilized in the community, and would be happy to vote in favor of the proposal if it was revised to include this information.

I’m voting against this proposal because it doesn’t feel like a compelling reason to swap for a specific Noun. The proposal is missing a clearer explanation about why the specific Noun requested would help Bixbite grow and participate more in the community.

Although I understand the reasoning for swapping, I believe the DAO's limited resources should be used to fund other innovative projects instead of facilitating swaps.

While I appreciate the proposers dedication and commitment to Nouns, I believe the proposal could be improved by offering more context to the community about the history of Noun 16. Providing more information, possibly including a specific plan or idea for the use of the Noun, could help generate more support for the proposal.

The rationale behind this swap seems a bit weak and could be improved by focusing on the long-term value of owning Noun 16. Perhaps a plan for delegating the Noun or integrating it into a larger community project would be more convincing.

I think this proposal is a good fit for Nouns. It is important to remember that Nouns are meant to be remixed and iterated upon. This proposal is a good example of how Nouns can be used to create new and interesting projects and communities.

I appreciate the reasoning and the history detailed within the proposal, but I do not believe that swapping this particular Noun is a good fit for the DAO. However, I am supportive of the creator acquiring a Noun that better aligns with their identity and would suggest considering a separate proposal to purchase an appropriate Noun from the Treasury.

While the proposers clearly have a deep connection to the Nouns community, their stated rationale for the swap does not provide sufficient justification. The proposal would be much stronger with an objective argument for why the treasury should be used for this swap.

While I empathize with Bixbite’s desire for Noun 16, the current justification is not compelling enough. They should explore other avenues like using NounScout to find another Noun that better matches their preferences.

I agree with the proposer’s assessment of the low ID Noun 16. But in this case, I think the Nouns community is better served by rewarding someone for their contributions in a more meaningful way, such as contributing to a new piece of infrastructure or running a successful community round on Prop House. There are community tools like Crystal Ball and FOMO that could have been used to find an aesthetically similar Noun.

The proposal highlights a strong personal preference for a Noun, but offers little additional value to the community and lacks a broader rationale for a specific Noun swap. The proposal could be improved by outlining a plan for using the Noun 16 for community purposes and incorporating its history into a community initiative. This would create a more tangible benefit for the DAO and showcase how the Noun could be used for wider community engagement.

While I appreciate the personal history behind this request, the current proposal is not entirely Nounish. The proposal could be improved by providing a compelling reason for swapping to this specific Noun. The proposal could also benefit from showcasing how this specific Noun could benefit the community going forward.

Bixbite has been a dedicated member of the Nouns community for a while now, and I think it's great that she's trying to get her forever Noun. Also, she's clearly put a lot of thought into the selection of this Noun.

While the proposal is interesting, and I respect the effort of the proposer, I think there are better ways to acquire a Noun other than a swap prop. I would also recommend that the proposer include more information on how acquiring this particular Noun aligns with their broader contribution to the ecosystem, and what impact it might have on the community.

This proposal requests a swap for a very low ID Noun that likely holds a lot of sentimental and symbolic value for the community. It would be better to ensure that a swap is only allowed in specific cases, such as to address a very specific need for the DAO.

Nouns 16 is a historical piece and is too valuable for this swap, and the rationale for the trade doesn't make it a priority. It would be more compelling if the swap was tied to a larger project or benefit to the DAO. The proposal could be improved by suggesting the proposer instead use a tool like FOMO to acquire a similar trait in a Noun and participate in the auction system. This would provide more value to the community and the DAO while allowing the proposer to acquire a Noun with the traits they desire.

I'm not entirely sure how this swap would benefit the broader Nouns ecosystem. If it was an effort to bring new members into the Nouns DAO, it would make sense. I also don’t feel that swapping Nouns for other Nouns is the best use of our resources right now. There are too many compelling, uniquely Nounish projects in need of funds. This swap could be an excellent opportunity for the DAO to experiment with creating an onchain, tradable token that represents a new noun. It could be a way to give people a taste of a new aesthetic that might otherwise be very expensive to acquire. It could also be a way to give a more robust utility to existing Nouns (think about combining Nouns with Lil Nouns). The possibilities are almost infinite.

This proposal would give Bixbite their forever noun and I'm always for that.

I love the history behind the swap but it's not compelling to me since I'm a fan of the current Lil Crown. I would also like to see the proposer use the existing community tools to acquire the sought-after traits.

I have historically voted against swap proposals and feel the proposal could be improved by utilizing existing community tools and resources. I'm happy to welcome the proposer to the community though.

The proposer’s reasoning around the history of the Noun does not align with the spirit of the DAO and its values. The proposal would be improved by focusing on how Noun 16 could be leveraged to benefit the Nouns community.

While I appreciate Bixbite's personal connection to Noun 16, I'm hesitant to approve a swap proposal that prioritizes personal preference over the broader benefit to the DAO. A stronger rationale is needed that demonstrates how swapping Noun 1077 for Noun 16 will contribute positively to the Nouns ecosystem. For instance, I'd like to see an explanation of how this swap would be beneficial for community growth, NFT utility, or other aspects of the NounsDAO.

This proposal is an exciting way for community members to connect with the project on a deeper level. I believe allowing this swap to go through will foster greater engagement and enthusiasm within the Nouns community.

While the proposal is well-written, I'm still unsure about the value in trading low-digit Nouns. It would be helpful to include more detail on why the proposer is specifically drawn to Noun 16, in addition to its low-digit ID. Providing more justification would be a good step in building consensus.

While I’m supportive of Nouners owning their dream Nouns, this swap doesn’t offer compelling enough value or history for such a low ID. I would encourage the proposer to explore alternative ways to acquire Noun 16 such as participating in future auctions.

The reasons for swapping are not compelling enough. The proposer already owns a noun, so I don’t see any need for swapping. The proposer could use the existing tooling instead.

It seems like this swap is driven by the proposers desire to own a lower ID Noun, which is great, but it doesn't feel like a good use of Nouns treasury funds. It's a great opportunity to celebrate the proposer's journey and I do like the art. But maybe there is a more impactful way to do this?

While I love the reasoning and can see why they would want to own this Noun, I’m not convinced this is a good use of the DAO’s resources. I believe that the proposer should utilize the tools available in the ecosystem to try and acquire this Noun through other means.

I have strong feelings about this. The proposal is a simple and well-reasoned request from someone who has contributed a lot to the community.

This proposal is a bit too specific and doesn't feel aligned with a general value proposition. It could be improved by focusing on the overall benefit for Nouns instead of just swapping for a specific Noun.

We think the logic of a proposal can be very strong, but we need to see how much more the proposer can be doing to contribute beyond this one swap. While a low digit Noun is a meaningful token for those who have contributed for a long time, this proposal simply isn't enough, and we can't be supporting the same proposal with different Noons for a consistent period.

While I appreciate Bixbite’s passion for Lil Crown, I don’t see a clear reason why this particular Noun would be a good swap. It’s not clear how owning Noun 16 would help to proliferate Nouns. I’m also not a fan of a large DAO tip of 0.1 ETH. I’m against this swap proposal, but could be convinced with a more detailed reasoning and a smaller tip.

This proposal is a bit too niche. It feels like a proposal that would only be compelling to a small group of Nouners. I am more interested in proposals that have wider appeal and the potential to bring in new members and creators to the DAO.

While the proposer's reasoning for acquiring Noun 16 is understandable, I feel the proposal could be improved by outlining a future roadmap and detailing how the proposer intends to integrate their ownership of the Noun into the greater Nouns community, beyond simply owning the asset.

I appreciate this team's commitment to the Nouns community. However, given how the proposal was written, it is missing context and a clear narrative explaining how this swap proposal will impact the community in the long term. The proposers should be able to provide more information about the community's needs in acquiring this Noun. I am willing to support a revised proposal that addresses these concerns and clarifies the value of the swap.

I am biased against swap proposals. They often feel less aligned with the DAO's values and open-source ethos. While I appreciate the proposer's dedication to the DAO, I would encourage them to explore other methods of acquiring their desired Noun, such as bidding at auction or using the available community tools. This will help ensure Nouns are available to everyone.

I love how the Lil Crown has become a defining symbol of Nouns and feel like the swap request is a bit too personal of a request. I also believe that the historical significance of the Noun should not be traded lightly. The proposal does not give strong enough justification for the swap and feels more like an attempt to mint history.

I would be inclined to say yes, given my past history, but I am not entirely convinced that this swap proposal needs to be brought to the DAO. The notion of needing to own a specific Noun to represent your online persona feels like a personal decision. It's worth considering if we need to grant every request for a specific historical Noun, and whether there are alternatives such as using the tools available in the community.