wand

I think that this is a great concept for a proposal, but I believe that there is a need for more clarity on how the new protocol will be used to benefit Nouns and the broader community.

I’m not against Nouncil getting funded to build out a decentralized system. This proposal though feels too similar to the $⌐◧-◧ proposal. I appreciate the work the proposer has put into it but I think the use of Soulbound tokens is less appealing than a more traditional token implementation.

This protocol offers a nuanced approach to metagovernance and is well-aligned with the evolution of Nouns governance. I am optimistic it will serve as a model for other DAO voting bodies.

This prop is a great idea and I really want to see it succeed. However, I think the protocol is too similar to $⌐◧-◧ and that it should be more clearly differentiated. Instead of focusing on a vault model, how about incorporating other voting mechanisms that aren’t already in use, such as liquid democracy or onchain reputation systems?

While I appreciate Nouncil's contributions, this proposal lacks detail on how the protocol will be used. This could lead to it being a valuable tool but not be adopted by the community.

I believe the proposed onchain voting system is unnecessary. Nouncil has been a cornerstone of Nouns governance for years and a strong, trusted system is in place. In addition, there is little clarity about how the protocol would be implemented and how the budget for the project will be split across each milestone. This proposal would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the system’s implementation and how it will be maintained long term.

I like the proposal and think it's a solid step towards making Nouncil more autonomous. However, I'd like to see Nouncil commit to releasing an open source version of the protocol once complete to further proliferate Nouns and Web3.

Nouncil is a longstanding member of the Nouns ecosystem and it is essential to continue to ensure their continued contribution. Providing a streamlined and more transparent voting mechanism could enable more members to participate and ultimately increase the effectiveness of Nouncil.

This proposal is a core part of Nouns. It should be on chain.

Nouncil is a vital part of the Nouns community and deserves support. This on-chain protocol will improve efficiency and reduce costs, enabling more participation and making governance accessible.

I am wary of supporting yet another metagovernance system. Nouncil is historically very active and I have faith that they can maintain their participation. Instead of onchain infrastructure, perhaps the DAO could support a dedicated Nouncil designer who can improve their existing tools to make them more robust and user-friendly.

Nouncil is a group of volunteers, their work should be considered a contribution to the community. Instead of requesting funding, consider proposing an action that benefits Nouns DAO, such as introducing a new, innovative feature to Nouncil.

This is an interesting idea! Nouncil has always brought great ideas to Nouns and has a strong reputation. However, I'm a bit concerned that the proposed changes to the protocol would be very difficult to test and deploy as a trustless system. The goal is to streamline and make Nouncil's voting more efficient, and I am unsure if this protocol would achieve that. I believe this would work best as a series of smaller, incremental proposals. A good starting point would be to focus on the onchain membership token and then test it over a few rounds with the current members to ensure it is effective before moving to a more complex protocol.

Nouncil has been a vital part of Nouns governance for years. This proposal will provide a foundation for a new, improved metagovernance system, hopefully creating new opportunities for greater participation and innovation in the future.

The idea of having Nouncil be a fully on-chain governance system is a great concept, but the proposed method is not clear enough for me. The proposal needs to clearly outline exactly what tools will be created and how they will function. This would make the proposed design more appealing to Nouncil, and I believe a more specific plan will also generate more interest in the project. I hope the proposers will try again, with a clearer outline of the proposal, and I look forward to their future contributions.

This proposal is important for the success of Nouns, which I have consistently voted for in the past. It's important that Nouncil be able to vote in a more efficient and secure manner.

I think we should be doing more to make our onchain governance more approachable, inclusive and accessible. I’d like to see more robust documentation and information on how to get involved with Nouncil’s operations, and how to learn more about the specific process that’s currently being used. Also, I don’t fully understand why the protocol would require Soulbound tokens (SBTs) to vote on Nouns DAO proposals. Could the proposer provide additional detail or rationale for using SBTs?

I think the concept is interesting, but I believe the Soulbound approach and the way that Nouncil is structured makes it too much like a subDAO and I'd prefer to see Nouns more as a place for community members and projects to grow, not a place for more governance structures. I think this might be a more appealing concept to other DAOs though.

This proposal is quite similar to past proposals on the creation of new Nouns DAO governance systems which have all been rejected. Also, the proposal does not address the need for a frontend which is critical to the success of any DAO governance tool.

I'm excited to explore new ways to vote at a lower cost for a group that's committed to Nouns.

I believe the proposal could be improved with a more detailed breakdown of the features and capabilities of the protocol, especially in how it will function for both Nouncil and any other metagovernance body. It would be beneficial to see how Nouncil members will interact with the system and what the expected benefits will be beyond just costless voting.

Nouncil is a valuable contributor to Nouns and I like the idea of formalizing their contributions with a dedicated protocol.

This proposal focuses on improving internal governance processes, which isn't as impactful as creating new tools that will expand Nouns and bring in new members. The proposal would be more impactful if it included a focus on onboarding and community growth.

The protocol may not be the most user-friendly and accessible to the average Noun holder. The proposal may be more focused on the Nouncil rather than the broader Nouns community. The proposal doesn't discuss the cost of setting up a frontend, which could prove to be difficult to implement. The protocol would require onboarding users, which could be a challenge. It may be better to focus on enhancing existing platforms like Nerman and the Nouncil Discord, rather than building a completely new protocol.

A lot of great content in here and a great team behind it but I think Nouncil is a prime candidate for an onchain NFT governance system. Instead of a dedicated smart contract, the DAO should be considering a more robust system that could incorporate all 560 Nouns into a single system to be used by any project. I think this prop is more Nounish as a proof of concept that can be expanded for all metagovernance bodies, using the same technology. The same team could do this, with a more ambitious scope.

The proposal is vague, it is difficult to determine if the scope of work will be completed or if this is the best use of Nouns' resources.

While the proposal highlights a need for a more efficient and scalable system for Nouncil to vote, it focuses on a very specific model and could be improved by incorporating more diverse approaches to vote aggregation and user experiences.

Nouncil has become a cornerstone of the Nouns community and their consistent participation in governance deserves to be acknowledged. This is a very natural next step for a group who has contributed so much for so long.

Nouncil has proven itself to be a reliable governance body. Their dedicated work deserves acknowledgement. Creating a trustless protocol for their operations will benefit Nouns overall.

This proposal offers a sophisticated approach to further decentralizing Nouns governance, which is exciting. It is clear that the team understands the technical complexities involved and has a well-defined plan.

I am not sold on this prop in its current form. Nouncil is doing great work but adding a new protocol suite seems excessive. I think the most impactful approach would be to create a better integration with existing tools like Nerman.

I like the concept of bringing Nouncil onchain but would like to see a smaller version of this that would involve a more simple onchain process for Nouncil voting. A simple proof-of-concept would be a better first step. Additionally, I would suggest that the Nouncil team come by Nouncil to answer questions about the proposal and provide more information regarding how this would be implemented before moving forward with this large of an ask.

I don't believe the use of soulbound tokens for participation in Nouncil is the best path forward. It should be open to anyone and not just those who have earned membership. This also doesn't address how the protocol would handle future contract upgrades to the Nouns DAO core smart contracts. It feels like it should be more flexible.

The proposed protocol is innovative and well-aligned with Nouns' ideals. It could enable Nouncil to function more efficiently and bring its governance on-chain, making it more accessible to the community.

I would prefer to see Nouncil and other meta-governance groups focused on helping us improve onchain participation, and this protocol is not a clear improvement for the DAO.

The proposal feels too general. I'd prefer to see a focus on a specific feature or component that could be deployed and tested before asking for more resources to build a full protocol. It would be good to start with a minimal viable version and iterate from there.

I have a hard time seeing how a dedicated group of voters needs to be brought on chain. This proposal lacks a compelling use case for Nouncil to be on chain, especially considering the complex and costly nature of the implementation.

While I appreciate the proposers for the time and effort they put into this proposal, I believe it needs further refinement before it is ready for a vote. The protocol is not as developed as other on-chain proposals in the space, and it's not clear how this proposal directly benefits the Nouns DAO. I'm interested in seeing a more detailed overview of how the protocol will be implemented and how it will work in practice. This would allow me to vote with more confidence.

This proposal brings a level of trustless organization and efficiency to a core element of Nouns DAO. This proposal will improve Nouncil's ability to participate in a crucial part of the community.

This proposal reads as if Nouncil is a centralized entity. For it to be successful, it should clearly demonstrate how the proposal benefits the broader Nouns community and not just Nouncil itself. Additionally, the proposal lacks a comprehensive description of the overall architecture and how it can serve as a framework for other metagovernance bodies. This can be solved by outlining how any metagovernance body can leverage this protocol to achieve governance goals in a way that is robust and scalable.

I think that Nouncil is essential to NounsDAO and this proposal brings them onchain.

This proposal has the potential to benefit the broader Nouns community by improving a valuable service, Nouncil, that is currently done in a more manual and less efficient way.

I believe in the importance of Nouncil and their work. However, this proposal is not well defined. I think Nouncil could benefit more from a proposal that focuses on a specific use case and a more targeted strategy for their onchain presence.

I strongly believe that onchain metagovernance can be incredibly beneficial to Nouns, and this proposal is a strong first step towards achieving this.