Title: Liberating Proposal Threshold for 26 years

Proposer: niftynaut.eth (#172, #373)

Block: 15449150

Link: https://nouns.wtf/vote/134

Request: set Proposal Threshold BPS to 1, reducing Nouns required to propose from 2 to 1 until we get to 10,000 Nouns

Result: DEFEATED

• FOR - 29 votes, 13 voters
• AGAINST - 123 votes, 16 voters
• ABSTAIN - 2 votes, 1 voter

TL;DR

• niftynaut (proposer) and others argue:
  • more proposals on-chain is better
  • only 20% of holders have > 1 Noun and can propose - this creates an unnecessary divide between Nouners that can propose and those that can’t
  • requiring 2 Nouns requires more off-chain “voting” for a proposer to get buy-in
  • can increase threshold later if needed
• opposition argues:
  • 26 years is too long
  • more proposals on-chain might reduce quality as well as reduce average voter involvement in each proposal
  • solid proposals should have no problem getting the support of 2 Nouns
  • don’t like the idea of changing the threshold too much
• niftynaut will put up an updated prop

Martin’s Take

This proposal kickstarted a really interesting philosophical debate around how much of governance should be on or off-chain, and what it takes to get a proposal up for voting. Those voting for broadly think that more “voting” should be on-chain rather than off and that all Noun holders should be equal in being able to propose. Those voting against argue that the off-chain rallying required for a proposal is good, improves quality, and even brings the community together. In voting, there is a clear split, as pointed out by Toady Hawk between smaller and larger Nouners. I’m eager to see niftynaut’s new proposal and whether it is able to pass. I think these types of votes are valuable in generating great conversation.

Key Discussions