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.
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!
I used your proof in my response. You glossed over my entire comment evidently. I’m trying to point out solutions and other perspectives, but it doesn’t seem you’re ever interested in that side of the conversation.
I get that things are imperfect (that’s the case everywhere, especially web3). I also think we should strive for better all the time. When I look at the issues we have though, I think we need to improve proposals drastically before we can say that we have a vote collusion problem. We also need voter participation to increase a lot if we’re going to be able to point to a deep systemic issue in the DAO (Low vote participation is already a problem, but I digress).
From what I see, most props don’t get votes because they are woefully incomplete, not because of some nefarious gatekeeping plot. In rounds with 50+ proposals, on average maybe 5-10 are what I would consider complete. Those that understand what a voter is looking to see will continue to get funded over and over again unless the others can step up their game and make better asks.
What do we think will happen on the Prop 175 vote? Let’s look at the team list, it looks very familiar:
How do you think @toadyhawk will vote with his 23 delegates? Will he vote to enrich himself further?
Do we not see a conflict of interest where Toady can create a prop, vote it through with his delegated votes and the influence he has in Nouncil and other places, and then just do it again and again and again?
This is obvious for everyone to see, and it is stopping people from joining Nouns community.
It is the same Toady people on The Noun Square, Nouncil, Ugly Nouns, all giving themselves money from the DAO.
Nouns is a farce, it makes me sad to say out loud.
I agree with you Andrew, idk which part myself but I think you are pointing out the latest Prop 175 here as a solution.
Your intentions are at the right places and everything, but yes things are imperfect. I personally believe that PropBox proposal could have been constructed even better so that those who have mixed feelings about this would have liked it as well.
I’m sorry for my past behavior last week if you think I was rude, I watched a new movie and I’m a whole different person now… for a couple of days
I see, like Andrew said " things are imperfect " but still the way that prop won by votes from just the team involved in TNS is pretty scary in the long term. These things makes a DAO- a DAO on surface but in mid level turns it into a monopoly of only few specific people that control things, Thats not very decentralized and nounish
I watched a new movie and I’m a whole different person now
This made me laugh out loud. Time for a user name change?
I’ve always said I’m not against you. That remains true. Let’s build solutions together.
These pictures were shared with me as they are public data but tell more stories of misuse and corruption at the DAO.
Look at how Andrew abuses DAO money for his InternatioNouns project.
Andrew get funding from NFSW for 2.2 ETH for his project InternatioNouns.
Andrew then used those funds for a like and share competition to get engagement on his social media channel.
Andrew then submitted a prop on the Nouns Go Viral Prop House campaign for InternatioNouns - which he already got funding for (which is already wrong).
Andrew, who is active on Nouncil, then got his Nouncil friends to vote for him and win the 5 ETH (which is wrong because he already got funding for this).
You can see he pays himself twice for same work.
See, he pays himself twice. OK, maybe he just does this once, no big deal?
Now look at Prop 175 and Nouns Incubator.
Andrew gets nominated for funding from Nouncil for creating Nouns Incubator.
Andrew asks for retro funding in Prop 175 for 5 ETH for creating this same Incubator.
He also got 0.69 ETH from NSFW for doing the same work.
Look who nominates him, his good friend Toady Hawk.
So if Prop 175 passes we are paying Andrew more than 10 ETH for coming up with the prop to pay him more ETH in the actual prop itself?
This is double dipping, plain and simple to see. You can see the evidence in the pictures.
This is a pattern, look at the people involved in the proposal, they are all Nouncil and UglyDAO and TNS, this is what they do, they just sneak ways to get money out of the DAO.
They are all obviously aware of these very clear issues and yet they dont stop it from being included in the prop? They don’t care… they feel too powerful, no one can stop them.
This is why everyone feels the game is rigged at Nouns.
Maybe if I pay for Prop Box “consulting”, maybe then I will get money from the DAO for my projects…
Also, please read this great article on Nouns governance problems:
I will copy the best part here, sorry for copying your text @Hindsight
Having a look at the UglyDAO members and the amount of votes delegated to them - it seems that they have about 32 delegate votes (more or less) while owning 2 nouns
On top of this, there is a lot of overlap between their members and following groups/subdaos
- lilNouns: 8 Delegates - Al409 who is on UglyDAO has decided the lilNouns vote in the last 10 props including this one (see: here)
- SharkDAO: 6 delegates - Joshua Fisher from SharkDAO is a member of UglyDAO and Nouncil (See: Snapshot Vote)
- Nouncil: 11 delegates - many members of UglyDAO are on Nouncil and have a lot of influence on the Nouncil vote
So here we have a group of people in UglyDAO that also work together in Nouncil, TNS etc that have 57 (+/-) votes either (a) delegated to them or (b) have a lot of influence in delegated votes - while owning 2 Nouns between them.
This is important:
In discord they have stated that the objective from the working group in prop 175 would be to eventually work with builders to get their proposals passed in return for a % of the proposal and that uglyDAO (with all of its delegated votes) will support those proposals.
I’ll be very transparent with you. I’ve received two payments so far for my work in NounsDAO. 0.69 ETH which I was nominated for by someone who saw that I had many many hours into helping people with proposals with 0 ask for reward. I also received a nomination through the community retro round which I think I made 0.9 ETH. Don’t quote me. Slightly less than 1 though. I also have received two small retro rewards for FOODNOUNS (0.34 and 0.15 ETH respectively)
I have made zero from Nouncil and zero from InternatioNouns, even though I’ve gotten a nomination recently for retro rewards from both. I’ve won grants totaling a little over 14 ETH for the communities I’m a part of to do different projects, so I’m pretty proud of that.
If 175 would pass, I did plan to use some of the 5 ETH as a retro reward to me and also to reward other Nouncil members who have done essential work to help the incubator process along. I hadn’t worked out the details on that yet, but the plan was to use a nomination process similar to what happens there now.
As for the things wrong in your report, they are quite numerous. InternatioNouns is not my project at all. I’ve just been helping them with proposals because that’s what I’m good at. They were very transparent about the use of funds for the 2.2 ETH and with the Nouns go viral project. I thought they did a pretty great job at it honestly and I think they’ll continue to do so.
Hopefully someday I’ll get the chance to double dip. I’ll need to get my first dip one of these days to experience such a thing. To be honest though, I’d turn down any payment that was above the value that I thought I created.
I’m happy to answer any questions about me or what I’ve written here. I’ve said before, I’m an open book.
To quote another Nouner:
the “5 eth of retro funding for what has been done to build this system already” - what is this for exactly? The network? Who is getting paid?
If 175 would pass, I did plan to use some of the 5 ETH as a retro reward to me and also to reward other Nouncil members who have done essential work to help the incubator process along. I hadn’t worked out the details on that yet
Was my answer not clear? I’m not sure how to help further.
I just found out that they’ve done this before too, earlier I thought just one time voted for themselves but…makes me wonder how many more cases like these have been going on under the Nounder’s nose as well as treasury
I cant even… no questions answered, have diverted the entire chat when questions asked from others nouners as well, suddenly summoning their own friends to change the topic. This proves that how they are misusing their power honestly.
Despite people asking them to be abstain from their own proposal and vote, now this discussion has come in full circle and proved my point once again. They are corrupted
These are just few examples, seriously kudos to those who were abstain about their own proposals and my respect to them. But these guys?
I’ve actually been afk proliferating nouns at an IRL event lately, for no monetary gain and actually spent like $7k out of pocket to do so. Forgive me for missing all these accusations and not participating in the chats.
But honestly, I feel like all this is not only disrespectful to the people who work day in and day out for Nouns DAO’s benefit, but also to the nounders. At least the comment about it happening under their noses.
I’m damn near positive most, if not all of the nounders have a hand in or a close eye on how the protocol is evolving, both on chain and the social layers.
They also still hold veto power… Should any prop seem to be a malicious attempt to drain the treasury through what you’re labelling misuse of votes (which I think is inappropriate tbh), or otherwise, it can be cancelled by them. To act like “it’s happening right under their noses” is both uninformed and imo more malicious than the actual so called misuse you’re attempting to socially vilify.
If you have a problem with how the protocol is working, you can submit a proposal to change things such as the ability to vote on your own proposals.
As it stands, whether we like it or not, a noun owner or delegate has one vote per noun, regardless of who submitted the proposal. It is baked in that you can vote on your own props and why wouldn’t you? If you submitted it, you clearly believe in it and are part of the consensus mechanism by voting. If someone believes they or others should abstain on their own props or any that are proposed by people they work with or have some relation to, that’s their call. This decision can’t be socially forced on others unless it is added to the protocol.
Trying to socially police the protocol is one of the key benefits to there being no central discord anymore imo. Anyone can try to shame others into voting a certain way based on social implications, but again, voters have the ability to vote as they see fit based on the protocol rules.
The people you’re targeting here work hard. This is a waste of everyone’s time imo.
If you’re looking to do some proposal results auditing, extrapolate payments out to an extended and unfunded period of work, leave out plenty of things that are done for no remuneration and generally bring this level of argument to the table, why don’t you start at the beginning and check over each and every proposal - even ask for funding to do so, see if it’s valuable to the DAO.
See a problem? Submit changes to the protocol. Everyone is free to use the protocol however they like and if a proposal is blatantly malicious or draining the treasury, there is still veto rights. It’s not a poor little protocol that needs the help of social policing.
My 2 gwei
@Benbodhi thank you for disclosing you are Ugly leader, and are a leader in the misuse of delegation and voting power at Nouns DAO.