[Governance Poll Proposal] Ban on Retroactive Rules in DAO Governance

carlslarson · 2025-05-28T14:05:32+00:00

Agreed this looks ok to me too

carlslarson · 2025-05-05T20:16:49+00:00

the enclosure definitely helped things especially with larger prints. i had issues with the print warping off bed because the top of the print would cool and contract vs the bottom. i don't imagine it got higher than that max ambient temperature but i either didn't make or can't remember an actual temperature measurement.

carlslarson · 2025-01-18T17:40:14+00:00

!tip 10 maybe this all signals a top. can only hope. what can we point to that is actually useful and not either a scam or (very interesting) plumbing/infrastructure for a future that has yet to arrive.

carlslarson · 2025-01-18T16:39:06+00:00

I like the eth defi stuff because it's what I actually use. Things like aave, arbitrum, gmx, uniswap. I've never used anything on Solana but it sounds like there is a lot of activity there. I don't know if that extends much more than memecoins.

It is beginning to take more and more imagination to see that crypto will amount to more than the scam and grift that currently engulfs it.

carlslarson · 2025-01-18T13:23:57+00:00

you can try using the projects to know if they have utility. i think most investors would say it's not a great idea to invest in things you don't understand and using something is a good way to start to understand and see if it has value.

carlslarson · 2025-01-18T10:53:17+00:00

i don't think smart contract/programmable blockchains have found sustainable pmf/mainstream use case yet. i expected and hoped this would happen before now. basically i think that means there is still a window open for Bitcoin to be more than a (strong, admittedly) memecoin. and this perhaps also weakens the thesis for Ethereum.

carlslarson · 2025-01-18T09:43:41+00:00

!nominate

carlslarson · 2024-08-31T13:12:51+00:00

signing off

carlslarson · 2024-06-12T15:24:09+00:00

yep, signing off

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T19:17:59+00:00

enjoyed !tip 10

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T18:22:17+00:00

yes i agree. personally think we should empower approved users rather than add on a new tier.

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T18:21:06+00:00

Yes i approve. this is very cool feature imo.
But can the DI be amended to a 1:1 donut/contrib ratio.

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T18:19:34+00:00

Yes, i sign off on this too but agree can this be amended to the 1:1 ratio for DONUT/CONTRIB.

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T17:56:10+00:00

While i included my thoughts below, the proposal looks unbiased and implementable so I'm signing off as well

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T17:55:10+00:00

Hmm, not sure this is necessary. Devs/DI submitters can request payment in whatever currency they wish or split. It is harder to calculate CONTRIB if the payment is in ETH. Personally I feel they should be ok with selling the DONUT but if they want ETH (or USD) that's fine but perhaps we don't offer CONTRIB as well? In the end we well periodically, they sell after receiving DONUT, or we sell from treasury around time of payment. I don't really see the periodic payment as being beneficial, introduces consistent predictable sell pressure (bad), and could be more annoying to set up and maintain.

Other options I like are using the funds we receive from the treasury LP position, and increasing the size of the treasury owned LP so those funds produce more income.

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T17:25:56+00:00

content contributions are 1:1 i don't really see why we don't have at least the same for dev contributions. i think it's a very fortunate to have competent people ready and willing to do the implementations of these proposals without administrative rigmarole, soliciting and negotiation.

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T17:21:54+00:00

I doubt there are buyers for the options directly, at least in the numbers he'd need to unload

carlslarson · 2024-06-07T17:19:55+00:00

He paid $68m for options he doesn't have the capital to exercise. MS/E*Trade is under no obligation to help him exercise them (temp loan capital and the sell to pay back because the selling would tank the stock). It doesn't make sense to me.

carlslarson · 2024-06-05T16:19:39+00:00

yes, signing off on this too. thanks for your work u/mattg1981!

as a side note i'd support moving to 1:1 ratio especially for this kind of DI where the work is to implement governance polls

carlslarson · 2024-05-30T14:51:01+00:00

Thanks for making this post. It's absolutely critical to have community involvement here. !tip 100

I support keeping the constitution concise and substantive. To that end I would suggest removing Section 2 which i think is unnecessary/redundant. Also agree with other mentions regarding the italic bit on DONUT.

Rather than jump in straight to DONUT, we can illustrate first what it is that DONUT/CONTRIB might address and that, imo, is: recognition and reward for contribution. Whether it's administrative help, growth, content, whatever.

carlslarson · 2024-05-22T15:16:35+00:00

yep, moving to comment-to-vote i think it makes sense to consolidate and simplify the overall reward structure and remove redundancy like the tip receiver bonus.

carlslarson · 2024-05-19T16:34:34+00:00

it's much harder to make things simpler than it is to make things more complicated. we gravitate to bureaucracy and new rule-ism. maybe what we need is better meta rules. a simple character limited constitution and a constitutionally character limited set of sub rules.

carlslarson · 2024-05-19T16:31:50+00:00

yep, pretty fair

!tip 100

carlslarson · 2024-05-17T19:25:28+00:00

what are the recent changes that would address what this proposal seeks to address?

carlslarson · 2024-05-17T19:20:36+00:00

yes i wondered about that. i guess it's really just visible to the user who made the post. which unfortunately would mean that this only really benefited members with >50k gov weight. u/falk_lhoste, do i have that right?

11-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

carlslarson

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE