Sharing my reasoning for voting FOR this proposal here as well (originally included in the vote itself):
I’m voting FOR prop 57 because in the current world where nouns lacks a mechanism (or any type of process) to compensate for success of proposals (note we fund mostly costs) it makes rational sense for the proposer to include what they want upon success. Naturally it’s a contentious and painful topic to discuss. Before seeing what the project delivers, how are we to know what the success reward should be? People are mostly arguing that 1 noun is a lot, but it can also be much too little. Ultimately, the correct success reward is infinitely harder to decide upon before the fact and can lead to much wasted heartburn each time. This is why I’d advocate for us to put into place something like Retroactive Impact Rewards - Nouns to establish trust with proposers that we will reward success fairly and generously such that we can move the reward discussion moment to AFTER the project is delivered rather than before. In lack of such process and trust in the current state, I do not see it as bad faith or form that a proposer asks for what they want upon success as part of their funding proposal ask. I’ll leave the ambiguity of “successful delivery” which is the 1 noun delivery criteria outside of this discussion. I’m imaging there’s some judgement by the DAO to make when the time comes and should be additional incentive alignment for the proposer to actually deliver something clearly successful in order to earn the noun without debate.