Misuse of Delegation and voting power?

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.
1 Like

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.

For example:

Hindsight (October 22)
Prop House: 3 eth
Prop 43: 1 eth
NFSW: 1 eth
Total: 5eth

1 Like

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?

1 Like

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.

  1. Delegates CAN vote for props they are involved in
  2. 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)



1 Like

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.

1 Like

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?


I do not think that Toady or any of the Nouncilors are trying to do anything as you describe. It seems that you joined on the 19th and all of your posts have been pretty aggressive, demanding and accusatory. maybe you should back up and do some research on what has been going on with the DAO, the governance and the people in the community. Right now it sounds to me like you are trolling for conflict and attention. Are you building tools and projects to address the problems you are seeing? Would love to know what your angle is here


A couple things. Looks like they would have won even without all of the extra votes from TNS people. The really bad part is that I believe each Noun gets 10 votes in the rounds. That means there were about 5000 votes available and only 379 cast. That’s criminally low participation. It points to there being a huge opportunity for those willing to step up the promotion game to breakthrough in the voting.

I actually like the fact that you guys are asking these questions. I think it’s healthy to look into it. I don’t feel anything nefarious is happening with prop house, and I do wish your methods were less accusatory, but it’s a good conversation to have.

I vote in all the prop house rounds for Nouncil, so I take the responsibility to read through all the props very seriously. I do find that most of the time the best props seem to make it through. I have also seen those that are close to winning get funding in other ways and get momentum even in a loss. That’s the whole reason for our incubator as well. We want to see more people create better props and get funded. Let’s keep making it better.


I know for a fact that many people have seen this issue and talk, but they dont wanna come forward and speak it out as they are a part of such teams themselves. My guess is Ponti is just one of those anon who create another anon account to bring this problem forward.
Other thing is it will hurt their image and title in Nouns, you know how things are

"That means there were about 5000 votes available and only 379 cast. " ~ yeh thats not gonna help the case, its clearly visible in prop house vote that 100% of the votes on TNS prop is from them only. You cant divert this fact sorry.

I do wish your methods were less accusatory, but it’s a good conversation to have.” ~ It’s not accusation when one shows proof of their claims.

Hey Evil!

First and foremost, TNS team members are a teeny tiny part of Nouncil votes. Please fill out this form immediately and get your butt in there:

“Should Delegates be allowed to vote on their own proposal ?”
The voting system is defined and understood. The question of people voting for their own props is long standing, and has been questioned by many. Some of whom, have actually done the math. I am not aware of any time where it was found that these votes would make a difference. That said, I think a lot of folks would just feel better if you put it to vote. I see no reason not to! The ones for it say it doesn’t matter so let’s do this.

“Let’s ignore the first thing that is baiting people to do good for the prize money of $5,000…”

NGL. That struck me a little odd at first too. Doing good for reasons other than simple selflessness, at a high level, does not get one where one needs to go. For the younger, incentives get us going in the right direction, and help us become sensitive to the depth and value of what it creates. This is not a bad thing, IMHO. Especially in these times where kids grow up on-line with working parents, and have little guidance. It’s like Santa. The concept of unconditional love is extremely complex. Santa helps little ones understand the concept as they begin their journey towards oneness. I am not condoning lying to kids here, just making a point.

Perhaps a few people might have gotten involved in doing good because of the contest. I watched dozens of the videos, and the huge majority had obvious organizational experience in feeding the hungry and other ways of doing good in the world. The younger ones, less organized, but still mostly very effective and clearly inspired.

“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.” + “when you have already been funded nicely before.”

Show me a +1 who has anywhere near the impact of TNS. And when you find them, ask if they were on a Noun O’Clock show. Our goal is to be behind that 1, and to promote their work on an ongoing basis. I don’t think we loose every builder who does not win any given prop house round. That person who becomes a -1 in your mind, will come again, or can drop into any TNS or internatioNouns show or discord, start asking questions, and they will be directed to any number of resources, including Nouncil.

I totally get the fact that other builders need space in prop house rounds, while TNS is partially funded. I say partially, because our props go in, but over time, our work expands exponentially. This is the nature of Nouns. The perfect example is the 24 hour spaces. In a traditional business situation, I would have budgeted 175k+ for it. Our team did it with zero ask. We sacrifice sleep and meals, to go way beyond what was planned, and that pattern continues as we grow. The incoming team has the same heart, dedication, and vision. And now, we are putting in some props to cover things.

Entering the Make Nouns Go Viral Challenge was simply a part of that, as are initiatives such as nomo.wtf, and quite a few other things that we are discussing. The votes show support of this within the Nouns ecosystem. TNS is running it’s own prop house as a way to bring more builders on board in new ways, and we hope many of these will also increase our funding while putting less weight on the ecosystem.

This doesn’t address everything, but I hope it will help understanding as to why TNS is starting to participate more frequently in prop house rounds.

I appreciate everyone’s time, energy, and love for Nouns. Nouns rule!