This is a bit last minute but interested if anyone thinks this is terribly reasoned & feels strongly it should not go on chain:
As the Noun supply grows, a static ProposalThreshold barrier disproportionately pushes proposal rights to fewer, larger wallets. As of this post’s date only 29 wallets hold >1 Noun. The ‘delegate’ function allows for proposing collaboratively, however, due to the value and indivisibility of Nouns, this requires concentrated conviction among a small group of members, versus the scenario of accruing support via a small delegation from a larger number of participants (Compound DAO etc).
Generally, more potentially unique “Proposers” seems intuitively beneficial for decentralization and some DAOs support proposal rights for >1k wallets with limited issues. There are ways to curb frivolous or malicious proposals (such as assigning a fee if a proposal fails) that have been used by other DAOs, and of course, the threshold can always be reverted if there is consensus on any negative consequences.
A conservative reduction of the required BPS to 50 (>=1 Noun for 1st 200 days) may be desirable on balance?
as a personal note, campaigning on ballots always seemed strange to me. tempted to write the on-chain proposal simply as:
… or maybe just the function call w no txt