We must also not forget that @Benbodhi is second in command at Gnars, and one of the “genius” minds behind Proposal 189 and “GamiGate 2022”:
Proposal 189 saw a whopping 298 votes
Breaking the @ nounsdao record for voter turnout of 251 votes held by Proposal 167
But I’ve a confession to make… We pulled a publicity stunt. Here’s the how and why:
@ponti
Time to sit down and listen for a minute.
Firstly, thank you for the compliment on proposal writing, I appreciate it. We put a lot of work into this proposal so I’m glad that’s clear.
Honestly, discourse isn’t the best spot for feedback, praise is nice regardless of who it comes from and it’s bound to be frens in this space that are paying attention when we’re around everyday.
Now let’s get something clear about Ugly DAO - this is a group of nounish builders who bought nouns together. I created the discord for us to chat in, so yeah I own that, but that’s the extent of it. It’s literally a group of people who bought nouns together and there really isn’t an owner more than any other.
And let’s get to the gnars comment. You are very clearly misinformed and it shows when you say stuff like this. I am a mod in the gnars discord, but I’m a community member like everyone else. I have been a long time supporter of gnars because I love the vision and community. I am not second in charge, that is a weird thing to say and not sure how you came to this conclusion. Additionally, I actually had very little to do with the recent proposal 189. That was put together by a number of other community members and once again, I’m just a big supporter of gnars. It shows how much you don’t know when you say things like this.
While you go around slandering passionate builders with baseless claims, I’m out here putting my time into many nounish projects and helping the community grow. I’m still to see anything of value from you. So please keep your comments civil and factual or don’t bother. Maybe do something cool instead of complaining.
This is a lie that is quite easy to prove false. Ugly DAO is a 1 of 2 Gnosis multi-sig between you and @toadyhawk. Please see the Gnosis Safe you created below.
Also, this is not a very secure way to store 2 Nouns. Please do better.
Another lie. You are listed in the proposal and are on the Gnars multi-sig (this one is a 3/5, good job @skateordao)
Also, when did you know that Gami inflated proposal 189 by 273 ETH, and when did you first speak out against it? Actually, have you spoken out against this yet?
Do you denounce this type of deception at the DAO?
The multi sig doesn’t represent the actual ownership and agree it should have more people on it, we just created it and did the bidding for the nouns. Offered for the crew to be added, but no one has been in a hurry to add themselves because we aren’t going anywhere.
I think they listed me because I do a lot of things for the DAO for nothing and were looking to add me to rounds for compensation I guess.
I had no input on pricing the prop, like I said, I didn’t work on it. I believe gnars could spend any amount well. I also think Gami is one of the highest value proliferators in Nouns, regardless of your opinion of what happened. Being on a multi sig doesn’t mean I worked on the prop.
This thread is supposed to be for feedback on the proposal, so please try and stay focused.
When did you know that Gami inflated Proposal 189 by 273 ETH, and when did you first speak out against it? Have you spoken out against this yet?
As the largest holder of Gnars tokens behind Gami (you own 101 tokens, he owns 117 tokens), surely you must have had questions about this?
The answer to these questions will inform the DAO on whether to entrust you with more funds for your Alps DAO proposal.