Retro funding for Discourse Proposals

I’ve been reading through all the Discourse proposals and it is clear that there are a number of them that have taken more than a week to compile, present and rework. Not all of them will go on-chain.

I think that in the spirit of Web3 these proposals should receive a retro funding amount of 2 eth. The reasons for this statement:

  • time and effort should be rewarded even if these props go on-chain or not.
  • these props provide research material for future props
  • these props reduce the research time for future props
  • these props are essentially case studies for future props
  • these props provide ideas and insights for other Nouners that are already in the eco-system

I can give some more examples but these are enough, let’s discuss.

1 Like

I’m not sure if this is even a serious post or if you’re just trolling, but I’m going to assume it’s serious and tell you 5 reasons why this is not a viable idea.

  1. There are hundreds of posts in this discourse. You would seriously drain the treasury to fund them retroactively? Why not discord ideas as well? Tweets mentioning Nouns ideas? Where do we stop?

  2. Certainly there would have to a minimum effort required to garner retroactive funding. Where would your line be for minimum effort required?

  3. It’s very obvious that many proposals have taken a great deal of effort more than others. How would you ever quantify which were more deserving?

  4. There are already a multitude of funding options to allow the best proposals to get funded including prop house, NSFW, DCS pod, and on-chain proposals. Not to mention many communities that will reward you for work if you provide value.

  5. And most of all…this type of setup would be an avenue for rampant abuse far beyond the things you’ve been talking about in other posts.

I say this as someone who would stand to benefit greatly from a setup like the one you’re proposing here.

1 Like

Everything that I post is serious and I don’t think trolling benefits anyone. I purposely didn’t elaborate and everything that you’ve said I agree with as this is a complicated debate, so break it down and look at some potential solutions.

  1. Not all ideas should be retroactively funded and quite a few of them would fall in NSFW’s category/decision to retroactively fund. If you have to be honest the majority of the ideas put forward in Discourse are shoot off the hip ideas that should be discussed by the community to determine if there is any further value to it, you are good at this Andrew and it is always a pleasure reading your thoughts. Discourse should be the port of call for all props, the information highway for the Nouns community. If a project like Nouns Square among others are receiving $500 000 then there is more than enough money in the treasury to support other contributions to the ecosystem.

  2. I started out by saying more than a week, let’s look at this as 5 days, 5 hours per day = 25h. It’s very clear which props have spent more than a week putting their ideas forward to the Dao. The main problem is that these props don’t go to a vote, you can debate that there are other avenues, but complex proposals by default should go to a vote. That is fair and respectful to the business people that put these ideas forward. It is not hard to determine this. Delegates are great, but spamming them with requests is not viable in the long run to get your prop on-chain if it requires a minimum of 2 Nouns in a wallet.

  3. The above is valid here as well.

  4. NSFW, DCS, Prop House granted. My statement is aimed at the larger props, these props require a considerable amount of time to put together and therefor are usually in the 50 eth plus category and should be treated differently to smaller props, once again this is a sign of respect to the people compiling these props. A good example is the Brazil Coffee Shop prop, that is not a fly by night prop and when the team had their 5 minutes to pitch the project at Nouncil, everyone listened but no-one asked any questions. Why? Because no one has any experience in that field and therefor is not interested. So if this prop doesn’t find it’s way to an on-chain vote then the team has literally wasted their time: way more than 25h researching and compiling the prop. A similar example is the Whisky Prop and a few others I’ve read.

  5. Correct, if the T&C’s are not calculated correctly, this will happen but it can be avoided.

1 Like