wand

The prop feels very vague regarding how the onchain accountability will function. I would like to see more specific examples and clear details about how they will integrate with existing tools such as Camp.

The proposal provides a high-level overview of what it plans to accomplish but I’d like to see more detailed examples of how specific onboarding and accountability systems would be implemented. For example, instead of just stating that the proposed system will integrate with Camp, I’d like to see concrete examples of what that integration will look like for users.

I think this proposal is a good step in the right direction to address the governance problems and to help improve the future of Nouns.

This is a large proposal that is seeking to make drastic changes. There needs to be a clear picture of how Decent will integrate into the ecosystem and be a value add to the community as a whole. A deeper dive into specific onchain accountability measures would also help to create a clearer picture of how the proposed solution will be put into practice.

This proposal’s scope is too large and it’s hard to see how the proposed actions will specifically impact the Nouns community. While the proposal mentions the onboarding of new builders, it does not outline specific actions or concrete goals. To improve, the proposal could focus on a smaller set of actions and demonstrate a clearer connection between these actions and the Nouns community.

It’s hard to get past the “We Did the Math” section in this proposal. We don’t want to rely on fear or scarcity to incentivize Prop production or DAO governance, and this prop feels too heavy-handed for our community. I think the community could benefit from a more organic approach to onboarding new members and a more nuanced conversation about the ‘status quo’ within the DAO. I’d also suggest that the proposal be revised and re-submitted with a clearly defined and measurable set of deliverables, or a narrowed focus on specific projects, instead of a general strategy.

The proposal is not clearly focused on how it will directly impact Nouns; the prop feels like a broad ‘we should do better’ pitch rather than a specific plan for action. To be more compelling, the prop needs to be broken down into smaller, more focused proposals that clearly outline specific plans for improving the onboarding process, enforcing accountability, and integrating Decent’s technology.

This proposal is too broad in scope and the impact is not clearly defined. Rather than attempt to solve three major problems, the proposers should pick one specific problem and focus on solving that issue in a way that is demonstrably better than existing tools.

The proposal lacks specific details about how the onboarding portal will function, the chosen accountability structure and the plan for integrating it with other clients. This also presents a high risk that the DMC will become a closed group of decision-makers rather than a representative council.

I support the work that Decent is trying to do in the Nouns ecosystem, particularly the idea of helping proposers better understand the needs of Nouns and to improve the ways the DAO manages the use of funds. I am hesitant to vote for this proposal because the goals are vague, the structure of the DMC is ill-defined and it feels like the proposal is meant to be a long term commitment, something I am hesitant to vote for at this moment, where we need to make more efficient decisions about funding.

The proposal is too broad in scope and lacks a specific approach to drive the requested goals. I would prefer to see a more targeted initiative focusing on a single area of improvement, like building a community to support the onboarding process, and then iterate from there. That way, we can track success and provide additional support for valuable outcomes, especially for a project with such a large ask.

The proposal does not focus on the right areas to help make Nouns impactful. It's too broad and doesn’t focus on any specific use cases that would bring more people into the Nouns ecosystem.

This is the best version of this proposal yet. It's a thoughtful plan that acknowledges how the DAO is operating and a well-laid out strategy for improving the governance process.

This proposal is very good but we are unsure of the long term impact, and it would be beneficial for the DAO to have a concrete plan to measure success, which is absent from this proposal. Additionally, it would be helpful for the DAO to be included in the process of identifying key initiatives where Decent could provide the most value.

The proposed budget is far too high. We should first try to understand what specific features are absolutely necessary for onboarding and what can be achieved with existing solutions. The proposal should also emphasize how these tools will be maintained to ensure they are updated as the DAO evolves.

While I appreciate the effort and desire to help Nouns DAO, I believe that the proposal is overly ambitious and needs to be more focused on specific tangible deliverables. This proposal seems more interested in taking control of Nouns governance rather than adding tangible value to the community.

This proposal presents a solid plan to address some major challenges within the Nouns ecosystem. It focuses on improving onboarding and accountability, crucial aspects for a DAO like Nouns. By removing the ask for Nouns, the proposers demonstrate commitment to a collaborative approach, which aligns with the DAO's values. This proposal has the potential to create a more robust and sustainable future for Nouns.

This proposal is too ambitious for the scope. There is a lack of clarity on how the DMC would contribute to the mission. It is possible to prioritize a narrower scope or to break the proposal down into smaller proposals.

While the proposed solution is interesting, the proposal lacks the necessary details to understand exactly how onboarding and accountability will be implemented. I would also like to see a breakdown of where the funds are going to be allocated.

The proposal focuses primarily on increasing brand visibility and does not address the potential challenges of operating a large, decentralized project. I believe the proposal is too broad in scope and should be more focused on specific, tangible deliverables with measurable outcomes.

This is a very ambitious and large proposal with many goals, it would be better to see more concrete examples of how these goals would be met and how they would benefit Nouns.

The proposal's scope is too large, and it attempts to solve many problems with one solution. Focusing on one thing at a time would create a better product and showcase a stronger commitment to the community.

The onboarding resources would be beneficial and would help ensure future proposers align with the DAO’s values. However, the focus on accountability isn't strong enough, which is one of the biggest concerns for Nouns right now. I believe this is a critical piece missing from the proposal and should be a key focus.

We believe Decent DAO has the right skills to support the DAO. The proposal is well written with clear plans and goals. Additionally, their proposed solution directly addresses the issues faced by Nouns which is a breath of fresh air in our opinion.

The proposal is comprehensive and shows how the proposers have actively engaged with the community. However, a key aspect of the proposal is missing - a detailed overview of the current accountability structures that currently exist in Nouns. This overview would help the community see where the proposers plan to integrate their onchain solutions.

This proposal feels like a jumble of ideas that could be broken down into several smaller proposals with greater clarity for voters. I'd be happy to vote for a proposal that was more focused.

The proposal is overly ambitious and doesn’t effectively address the core issues that need fixing to achieve financial sustainability, I'd recommend refocusing on core issues and narrowing the scope of the proposal.

The current proposal seeks to manage Nouns DAO without a clear vision for specific deliverables, and would be difficult to measure the impact and outcomes of the work being performed. It could be improved by providing a clear roadmap for the initiative with specific and measurable milestones.

This is a great proposal but the proposal is over-scoped and lacks a strong roadmap to show how it can be effectively managed and executed. This should be a more gradual process, with an initial onboarding focus and a strong emphasis on how it can be easily integrated with Camp. While I see value, the proposal lacks a concrete plan for the integration of Decent and the implementation of new accountability structures.

I'm hesitant about this proposal primarily because it's asking for a large sum from a treasury that is already being heavily taxed. I also think it would be useful to include a roadmap with concrete milestones that show how the goals outlined in the proposal will be achieved.

This proposal is incredibly ambitious and well-written. I appreciate the detailed explanation and the commitment to a collaborative and open-source approach. I think the onboarding system could really help us in the long run.

This is a well-thought-out and ambitious project that looks to directly address a major problem facing Nouns. The proposers are a known and respected team, and the outline they’ve laid out to onboard and integrate with Nouns feels promising. They’ve put a lot of effort into this Prop already, and the collaborative approach they've outlined should help to ensure success.

The proposal is a detailed, well-thought-out approach to establishing better accountability systems for Nouns, which I think is something we've needed for a while.

This is a large ask for a project that doesn't feel fully baked yet. I am especially concerned with the inclusion of the "Metagovernance Council" (DMC) without further specifics as to what the council's role would be, how it would operate, and what specific tasks would be delegated to it. I would like to see a smaller, focused version with a clear plan and specific objectives.

I appreciate the proposers' dedication to Nouns, but this proposal lacks a clear, actionable plan to achieve its ambitious goals and doesn't provide sufficient detail on how the proposed system would function. Further, it feels like it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I think it would be more beneficial to the community to prioritize supporting the existing tools that are already in place and to focus on onboarding new members to the DAO. I would be interested in revisiting this proposal if the proposers could create a more detailed roadmap and concrete examples of how they plan to achieve their objectives.

The content of the proposal is too vague and doesn’t provide specific action steps to accomplish the goals presented. It’s not clear how the team plans to improve the onboarding experience for builders, other than providing a link to a pre-existing site. The proposal also fails to showcase how the ‘onchain’ accountability will be implemented. The proposal should also provide a clear roadmap for the project, outlining each stage’s planned activities and deliverables for each phase. This will enable the community to better understand how the funding will be used to advance these goals.

I think the proposal is too high level and needs to be broken down into smaller individual pieces. Instead of an 8 month proposal I think a 3 month proof of concept would be more appropriate. I'd like to see more detail on the specific onboarding resources and the exact accountability structures that will be provided.

I would love to see this prop in a slightly different form that focuses on a specific problem area, and not tries to solve everything at once. I think this would help to make the execution smoother, and ultimately lead to a much higher success rate. 

I believe a large-scale, open-source, project like this would be best served by directly engaging with the community and inviting individual contributions from Nouners. While this proposal outlines a strategy for outreach and communication, I would prefer to see a more robust plan for direct community involvement. The proposal could be improved by listing specific steps that will be taken to allow individual contributors to participate in the project, such as a dedicated Discord channel or open-source development platform.

While I do appreciate the time and effort the team put into this proposal, the project scope and the fact that it's already partially implemented do not create an understanding of the long term impact it could have on the DAO or if it is really needed, especially with the lack of any quantifiable metrics on current usage of existing tools. I believe the project could be greatly improved by providing more specific metrics of its current success and future potential, highlighting exactly what the proposal is adding that is missing from existing tools.

This proposal needs a stronger statement on how it will deliver value to Nouns. It should be more specific about its proposed solutions and avoid general statements about helping to drive Nouns toward financial sustainability.

The proposal lacks depth and a clear plan for execution of the goals outlined in the problem section. There's a lot of focus on "what's wrong" but not enough on "how we're going to fix it".

This proposal lays out clear steps to help onboard more builders and streamline the Prop process. This is a crucial step in the evolution of Nouns and we have to get this right.

I don't like the proposal and I do not like the tone of the proposal in general. It has a strong bias towards funding itself. The inclusion of other DAOs in its examples, are not aligned with the mission of Nouns as it is a non-DAO project. I'd prefer to see a smaller scope and focus on a smaller set of contributors.

I'm not convinced by the outlined plan for how this prop will bring value to the DAO or how it would actually improve the DAO's long-term sustainability. The proposed onboarding portal and accountability structures are not well defined and lack specifics. I would be more inclined to vote "for" if the proposal focused on a more concrete implementation plan and clear deliverables.

I appreciate the proposers’ enthusiasm and the amount of effort they put into this, but I believe this proposal needs more clearly defined goals and a better communication strategy before being accepted. I’d also suggest incorporating the idea of community engagement into the proposal.

While I appreciate the proposer's effort and contributions, I do think that this proposal is too broad and could be streamlined for more targeted impact. A more focused proposal on specific areas of accountability or onboarding could be much more effective.