I struggled with this one as well and was also leaning For. It's cool software and the fact that it's open-source and easy to self-host is great, but I think it's important the team demonstrates success/need for the product or participates in Nouns outside of seeking funding if they want continued support from the community
+1
> I really wrestled with this one.
>
> one the one hand, I very much agree with Krel & Frog that a culture of retro rewarding work is desirable
>
> on the other, I worry we're setting a bad precedent because of the details here
>
> no disrespect to 9999 & ccarella, I think they made bad takes about precedent either not existing or being impossible to enforce in Nouns. it's impossible to scale without a culture of norms & boundaries enforced by people who stay around for a long time
>
> I think its a bad precedent for two reasons:
> - in his correspondence with Nouncil, Winter explicitly said, "I have plenty of Nounish project ideas (some really cool ones, actually!) for my intern, but I can't be paying him nothing."
> - the Nounders wallet forcing this through
>
> I was leaning For before reading that message. nouns.sh was explicitly restarted because of client incentives and the potential to earn revenue. if you've been unable to generate usage and if you're not in a position to take on paying an intern, the onus is not on Nouns to pay them for you just because you built something that interacts with Nouns contracts.
>
> "Nouns should fund things that last.
>
> This should not be a VC for startups or a job to pay your bills.
>
> Create meaningful, lasting creations.Think 5-10 years, not just the next year.
>
> Dream bigger. ⌐◨-◨" - ppd
>
> the Nounders Wallet being activated for a non-core infrastructure proposal, (ie DUNA,) gives the appearance of impropriety and fundamentally undermines the idea of Nouns governance as decentralized. if Founders at large feel strongly about a proposal, they have votes in their individual wallets they can use to vote without sullying the process
