tldr: Small group of people manipulating votes and bending props in their way. Entry for new people into the nouns ecosystem decreases.
Problem : I’ve noticed that most of the prop and project have the same number of individuals. They are everywhere, be it either as team members or multi signer and even more. Feels like few people have got a tight grasp over the Nouns community where they just drain weekly and monthly ETH regularly. Thats okay right? You put in the work and hour and get compensated accordingly. But it feels like they are over paid, and that too from multiple sources.
One thing I noticed was delegates voting for themselves. This is just one of the few examples I have seen and few people think there are many others as well. Question arises, should delegates be allowed to vote for their own proposals and contest? Makes sense for a nouner but delegates? Who are building their own product or community but will ofc be biased towards their own proposal and vote.
One recent example can be seen below at the here
The top voted proposal here is by The Nouns Square
Let’s ignore the first thing that is baiting people to do good for the prize money of $5,000 and focus on the things thats even more weird and maybe ethically wrong.
TNS was set up with the goal to onboard new people into the Nouns ecosystem and spread the word around Nouns, in this case for sure they have been funded and using the same to organize prop house and contest, but why take part in an open round and submit for the prize when you have already been funded nicely before. This creates a huge gap between them VS someone with the potential to bring a whole new audience to Nouns. Thats -1 potential builder already.
Second of all, this wasnt even fair voting. The people who voted are the team members of TNS itself.
That’s 53 votes out of 87
on this prop already, way more than 50% in favour of a proposal by its own team.
Let’s get to the nouncil voting side. 8 people from TNS are part of Nouncillors. See the entire list here
It’s easy to say that even nouncil votes on the proposals are easily manipulated for the same reason. Consider what all they have contributed for the DAO. But why take part at all where it could have been won by someone else ? Should Delegates be allowed to vote on their own proposal ? Thats not morally wrong or right but is something that should be considered because vote manipulation in DAOs are not a new problem. If there will be some sort of rule then still something like can easily be done via friends voting for friends.
Another example can be in the second winning entry. Keeping in mind that its a contest about making nouns go viral, and second place goes to an account that was made in November itself. Clearly not something that has been able to spread the words around nouns as of yet but still won. You can see everyone who voted for this entry as well. You can see where I’m going with this
So this is a problem that should be solved soon otherwise in the long run these things can be problematic specially when there’s centralized groups in a community that calls itself DAO.
FYI, there are many more examples like this, from previous prop house to on-chains as well.
I think this is a very good question.
I do not think that delegates should vote on any proposal they are in any way financially involved in.
Dont know if this can be enforced on chain but should at least be a social norm.
@AndrewLaddusaw any Feedback about this?
Yip, this is the Nouns Atm that I keep referring to. I don’t think these questions are an attack on anyone but as props are scrutinised or ignored by the powers that be then the same tough love should come from the public’s side as well. It is going to be interesting if anyone from the core money makers give any transparent feedback. I think it should be @maty job to make a public ledger of how much money goes to all these individuals since the inception of the project. Is that not fair?
Maty has recorded so much already, keeping a track of this would be even more hectic for him I guess, also it’s almost impossible to track this. What I saw is a couple of people getting payment from multiple sources of the project they are a part of. This followed by the latest prop 175, where ~surprise surprise~ has the same number of people already. Also this very same has its own conflicts as of now.
So same number of people doing work for different projects and then adding on more, being paid from all of these, that too overpaid is a problem of its own
@maty is getting paid 5.5 eth a month to manage Nouns finances. I think he has time to fit this in to his schedule.
If this can happen then it would be amazing. But considering that he is a part of their team as well idk if that should be done.
- Keeping track of all of these things might be hectic but I hope its possible.
Im not 100% sure that is @maty 's job.
I cant see why anyone would argue against complete transparency about what they are being compensated by the DAO. The onus should be on the people receiving funding for work to simply provide a very monthly update to a sheet saying how much compensation they got and from where.
There are a lot of funding sources now in the dao between props, nfsw, nouncil etc etc. so expecting people to be able go into each of them and work out how much anyone is getting an compile a list is unrealistic. Maybe Maty could maintain this simple sheet. But it should really take up little time.
Hindsight (October 22)
Prop House: 3 eth
Prop 43: 1 eth
NFSW: 1 eth
It is not hectic, as he is getting paid to essentially do a day job for the 5.5 eth p/m. If you can’t work on Nouns finances for 40 hours a week then you shouldn’t be getting paid this much. This is just logic if this machine is going to last, in-depth finances tracked, no double-dipping so that new people with solid ideas are going to get funded. If the core people involved can’t see this and be transparent with what they earn then the system is fundamentally broken.
This is between the delegate and the one who delegates, is it not?
If it was somehow enforceable on chain what do you think would be the optimal choice in terms of DAO governance and incentives…if you had to choose, knowing everything you do about the current delegate structure.
- Delegates CAN vote for props they are involved in
- Delegates CAN NOT vote for props they are involved in
Not when delegates votes on behalf of some nouns on their own proposal, specially when there are literally 100% nouns involved in a vote
100% agreed on this one. delegates should abstain if there is conflict
I also feel that this should be handled, btw thank you @evil for conveying it here, actually I’ve brought up a little topic to fix this problem on discord NFSW, I think this is an obstacle to the development of nouns to develop in the future, how not? if this keeps happening then Nouns is no more than paying for 1 shirt at a price that is much more than once (if compared)
it’s not about 1 person doing some of the work of the proposal they submitted, but HOW CAN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN FUNDED PRIORLY WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, CAN REWRITE THE PROPOSAL WITH THE SAME PURPOSE AND THEY ARE VOTE TO WIN THE PROPOSAL
for example like the one above, TNS was founded with the aim of getting new people into the Nouns ecosystem, and TNS should have been funded before. and they have a Nouns Give Back contest , and that I think is a feedback from TNS to Nouns , then they wrote a proposal to make nouns go viral, and they won it.
isn’t that the same?
@cdt.eth it seems the steps that must be improved for Prophouse are to review the proposal and prohibit a team or individual from participating in the round prop if (they have been previously funded to do the same thing) to make it run more fairly.
Thank you @BigshotKlim, 100% agreed on this one. delegates should abstain if there is conflict.
But @toadyhawk does not agree with you @BigshotKlim, as he will continue to vote with his delegate votes to enrich himself at the expense of the DAO. He now has a new prop (Prop 175) with his usual friends who all vote together as Evil has noted. @AndrewLaddusaw, any feedback on this?