I think Nouns is the best culture for onboarding people into crypto with our celebration of art, tech, and community. As people learn more about Nouns, they eventually discover that the project is structured around a Cayman Foundation, which can feel off to those who don’t fully get the reasoning. From personal experience, I know it'll be way easier to evangelize the project without having to explain or defend that. Moving to a DUNA in the USA would keep Nouns more in line with its mission of being a welcoming and positive culture for onboarding.

Spent a lot of time in the details, and while we as voters don't have the full picture, I'm in favour of directing liabilities for the DAO's actions toward a designated legal entity, and away from any of our own.

nom nom DUNA

Absolutely repulsed by unnecessary urgency after going public with duna plan and lack of foundation direct communication opening to so much confusion and energy draining for nouners as i personally felt it but after tons of research talks this is most probably the best way to move forward

I doubt there's anything I can say here that others haven't already covered- particularly noun40 in his VWR.

All I have to add is, while i share the concern that this is a step back from the level of decentralization we all want, I both hope and believe that this is our best available option for keeping the project going long enough to see better options.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Nouns goes beyond the DAO and beyond its official members. It is a community, a movement, built around making the world a better place for all of us on it. Painful as the loss of decentralization is, it's a small price to pay for the security needed to continue that mission.

We may be taking a step back- but only in preparation of taking many more steps forward.

I really wish we didnt have to do this, but based on the conversations it seems like we do.. in that case I believe the intentions behind the change are good & that DUNA is the best option for Nouns in this scenario, so I am voting yes.

but

The process seems a bit rushed - years of Foundation and relative quiet turned into "we need a change and we need it now" really quickly. (I find it a bit similar to how Fork was introduced "ahead of the problems arising", at least thats how i felt at the time, and I'm still not sure that was a good addition to Nouns.) I also dislike the fact that there seemed to have been conversation and work done on this long time ahead of the public conversations. Does this really have to be the case?

this is a big enough change to the core fundamentals of the project that it seems like nouners interested in pursuing DUNA should fork and go in that direction and leave the permissionless dao as is.

but if this prop passes i'm optimistic that nouns will be a leader in establish legal clarity for internet-native orgs.

and i appreciate all the time and energy that's gone into this prop ⌐◨-◨

Let's keep the experiment alive. Let's have the best of both worlds and push the boundaries of what's possible, one noun at a time.

⌐◨-◨

Echoing the sentiment regarding the process and transparency, but I am optimistic that this is the right move for the DAO even if it seems like a tough decision in the moment ⌐◨-◨

⌐◨-◨

big if true

As someone who lives far away from the US, I feel that the DUNA might change the view of Nouns in Indonesia in the future. However, I believe that Nouns should transform into a bigger organization, and I support KYC for funding recipients so that it is easy to track when there is a problem in the future.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/662/votes

FOR 39 VOTES

AGAINST 142 VOTES

nekofar.eth | "Nouns are holding a significant amount of Lil Nouns tokens, but with the uncertainty surrounding the post-DUNA future and the historical pattern of sub-DAOs being sidelined mechanisms like forks, it’s becoming more evident that these changes could pose a serious threat to both the future and independence of Lil Nouns. If the Nouns DAO continues to ignore or try to influence the direction of sub-DAOs like Lil Nouns post-DUNA, it might jeopardize the autonomy we've built and diminish the long-term sustainability of our community."

lilprotector.eth | "Keep Nouns permissionless"

ABSTAIN 14 VOTES

pipe da snowman | "not clear how this affects Lil Nouns..."

Regardless of the expense, this is arguably the most nounish thing we can do. We have been at the forefront of electronic governance, and this step cements that fronteirsmenship. Furthermore, this can be an important mechanism to allow us to pursue future props that shore up our auction and balance sheet value. Seems like an all around good move.

lilfrog had this cast the other day saying that wag, me, and 4156 voting in favor would push this prop through and i've been mulling on it since. there's an underlying tone of resentment around the fact that the three largest voting bodies are all supporting this prop. in the vwrs there's also a lot of similar resentment and added speculation around our motives, so let me try to lay out the situation as i see it in more plain english.

why on earth is the largest holder, the largest delegate, and the most prominent founder the ones that are the most worried about liability from the project? you don't need an elaborate theory to understand why. it's because OBVIOUSLY we're the most likely ppl that would be served. the IRS can think we haven't paid taxes for NFTs we sold. the SEC can think we have issued unregistered securities. FINCEN can think that we are in violation of of the AML laws by not KYC-ing grantees that we're paying out millions of dollars. Any disgruntled DAO member(s) that's not happy about a protocol change can sue us for negligence or harm (we've experienced threats of this btw).

is it really that crazy that we are the ones most motivated and interested in creating a stronger legal entity that is capable of handling those inquiries and having the legal/jurisdictional basis of responses to be more solid what we have with the cayman foundation? (i explained a bit more about why i think some of our current arguments around these issues are tenuous here)

there is often a desire to say "well, the DAO is just software and it's entityless so it can't be sued. so why the worry?" i think of wilson's cast here as expressing a similar view("Bitcoin doesn’t need a legal entity. Why do we?"). i think this is misinformed. first off, maintiners of bitcoin core have actually been sued (most notably by CSW) and many stepped away from their maintainer role for this reason (b/c the lawsuits were hell and they couldn't handle the brain damage and potential personal financial ruin). secondly, in the case of a completely automated protocol like bitcoin then the liability is more limited for node runners. they didn't really make any concrete decisions besides deciding to run the code someone else wrote. which is why the lawsuits have centered around open source devs that write and have the ability to merge in code. nouns voters don't have that luxury. we are actively making concrete manual decisions on each prop. if a regulatory body or a member of the dao is not happy with the actions or consequences of the dao then they could absolutely pursue an enforcement or law suit and you don't get to say i don't think i have any responsibility here as far as i understand it.

when nouns started DAOs were so new and at the time a fair amount of this was open to debate. but it's become more apparent that daos will be held liable (and their members individually in the absence of an entity that provides limited liability). a notable case is the california district court ruling that the bZx DAO could be deemed a general partnership and that the members were jointly and severally liable for losses related to a hack. CFTC's enforcement action landed for the same DAO arguing that the Ookie DAO (renaming from bZx DAO) was in violation of the commodity exchange act.

you might say the existing cayman foundation could handle these lawsuits and enforcement actions. can it? how could the foundation assume full responsibility? just b/c it was funded by the DAO for setup and because it has veto power? it's quite easy to argue that the DAO is a separate entity from the foundation (wilson is literally arguing this) and that the DAO and its members should be responsible for its own actions.

if we get a class action law suit from members or an enforcement action from a regulatory agency and i am named as one of the defendants i want certainty that i can say "this is wrong. i am a member of this entity. the entity is responsible and you should bring the matter to the entity" and know with reasonable certainty that most courts would honor that redirection b/c it is a claim that's well substantiated. in other words the DAO needs to be something somewhere. nothing nowhere is not tenable imo for providing limited liability protection to its members.

of course you can disagree with me on if the current setup is tenable or not. i also want to recognize that the incentives are also likely not the same. as i said at the top, the largest known holder, the largest delegate, the most prominent founder are likely the ppl to be sued or held liable of any responsibility that the foundation cannot assume, not every individual voter (practically speaking). you might think i'm selfish or braindead. but personally i have to advocate for a version of nouns that i can continue to be an active participant in. i also think this is a the good thing for the DAO. i hold only two nouns (rest of voting power delegated is from zora and others). i'm an independent board member on the foundation. if i thought this was the founders' risk aversion being overly expressed i would speak up and disagree. if i thought this was just large holder bag holding financial self-interest then i would speak up and disagree. i don't think this is that.

(continued in the next signal vote comment since i ran out of vwr space)

Long live Nouns

I wish there were a way that nouns could remain a truly permissionless protocol forever, because for me (like for many) this was one of the aspects of the grand experiment that attracted me here in the first place. But it seems that is an increasingly more naive and untenable position within the present regulatory environment, according to people who are paid a lot of money to be deeply knowledgable about these things. So, the closing of this chapter of nouns is sort of bittersweet for me, but I am still forever bullish on the incredible people who make this community what it is, and excited to see what happens in this next season.

To some of the good folks the DAO may lose on our way to the other side (Paperclip bros, three9s, others), I want to say that I respect and understand your position and please, don't be strangers. <3

After thinking about it for a hot minute, also thank you for all the content and heads up around this, I am for this.

It is painful that we need some sort of legal shell to protect us but I 100% agree that if we are not proactive in this space, then we have less of a "say" on what gets decided for us. This seems to provide us avenues for more legit ways of revenue.

As an example, my company uses a portal to match our donations so our donations have more ooomph. And would love to do this via Nouns

It was awesome to hear you guys at NounsTown LA and learn more about Duna from Punk and Seneca. Noun40s talk was a great insight as well. Really appreciate getting to learn more about this incredible community and get a chance to participate in its governance. I’ve spent my life finding the balance between keeping skateboarding raw and making it something more people can connect with. The DUNA proposal feels like something similar. The core is where we push limits and keep it real, but if we want to reach more people and take things to another level, we need the right setup to make that happen.
With Nouns DAO, it's the same story. We’ve got this amazing, creative core with a strong ideology, but if we want to keep growing and protect what was built, DUNA gives us a way to do that. It’s not about losing the heart , it’s about making sure we can scale up without losing that core.
I’m no tech expert, but I know when it’s time to build a bridge, and this feels like one of those moments. It’s a step forward that makes sense from where I stand and I’m here for it.
Nouns Can Dream!

Deeply reluctantly in favor. All the decentralized ethos/values arguments are right. This is a step backward in that regard. That said, we have had no treasury management and staying as we've been all but would ensure the treasury goes to zero eventually.

I get there is risk we may have back-taxes that eat up the treasury but suspect there are more ways to manage that tax burden in a DUNA format than not. 501c status is also appealing, IF the mission is to be the most impactful onchain giving organization.

I'm going to look back on my own words in a few years and hope I don't have to eat them. I hope pioneering the DUNA coupled with a better regulatory environment helps us come back. Grow the treasury, grow community, grow impact. I hope we don't see a mass-international exodus, although ofc in the short-term we're leaving behind anons, many international contributors who have made big impacts, etc. Overall the choices are absolutely f'd. It's also not lost on me the Nouns Foundation has operated in a suboptimal way and transparency/accountability has been lacking. The original remit has not been fulfilled.

I care most about Nouns as an onchain org, a going concern, and a pioneer for art, culture, and tech in crypto. Maybe legal/regulatory is another frontier we can step forward on.

Nouncil has spoken.

We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord https://discord.gg/fdjJpMeV6K. The calls are public and all are welcome!

You can find a link to previous call recordings in our Discord "links" channel.

Nouncil has voted For this proposal, with 25 votes for, 13 against, and 9 abstentions. Thanks for playing Nouns.

FOR - 25 VOTES

borg00000 | "Unsure if nouncil should even have a vote here? Same for zeroweight"

bigshotklim | "we need this to properly move forward"

benbodhi | "I think this is the best direction for the DAO at this point."

mindtoasted | "Either its a Duna or Dooma"

AGAINST - 13 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 9 VOTES

Very much no.

This is one of the most difficult proposals I have had to vote on since I became a Nouner. I realize this is not ideal for people outside the US, but also understand the complexities of running a crypto project in the US. I believe the team has given this issue lots of considerations and is making this decision for the longterm viability of the project.

This is a blatant case of social capture. Even some of the people who voted for this seem to hold their noses while doing it. We’re staring at a situation where a handful of influential voices, those who have consistently undermined the ethos of this ecosystem, are steering the DAO towards a cliff. These folks have a track record of going against the DAO’s decisions, misusing resources, and now they’re asking for a massive pile of funding to chase some hazy, undefined agenda.

In an ideal world, these people wouldn’t even be trusted to water a houseplant after everything they’ve done. But here we are, stuck in reality, dealing with yet another textbook example of social capture, where clout outweighs principles every single time.

This proposal isn’t about progress; it’s about trading away decentralization for corporate-style, top-down control. We’re talking about setting up a new structure that’ll bring in KYC, regulations, and all sorts of red tape, turning an open experiment in decentralized governance into something shiny but shackled. It’s like trying to domesticate a wolf that was meant to roam free.

The worst part? They’re trying to pitch this as the only path forward, without any room for community-led alternatives. And raising the fork threshold to 100%? Give me a break, that’s just locking out any form of dissent, pure and simple. It reeks of gatekeeping, turning the DAO into some exclusive country club.

If this passes, we lose what makes Nouns nounish: the chaos, the permissionless creativity, the freedom for anyone to come in and build something great without asking for permission. Instead, we’ll end up with lawyers, paperwork, and all the suffocating bureaucracy that comes with trying to look “legitimate”. We’re supposed to be blazing new trails in governance, not turning into the very thing we once set out to disrupt.

If you want to keep Nouns decentralized, weird, and free, vote no. Let’s keep the spirit alive and kick back against this attempt to box us in.

trusting the process, ⌐◨-◨ forever

I have doubts this is the right path forward, not going to lie, but I'm going to vote for.
Of all the criticism that's been given, personally I think the one that resonates the most with me is the lack of push and transparency by the foundation, and that hurts. I know not everything can be made public for legal reasons, but this project is what it is because of the community, and it really feels as if the foundation forgot it existed on purpose until it was late and it exploded. I am noone to talk about this, I don't know anything about inner politics in nouns or whatever, but this wasn't handled correctly.
I expect better, but I'll give them a chance to make up for this.

Why would the nouns community sacrifice its values because of certain US holders?

Nouns has been trailblazing in many ways. Focusing on a DAO structure with regulatory clarity matters for crypto, and Nouns can push it forward. The folks behind this proposal are very thoughtful and have considered this carefully. I trust the many hundreds of hours of research that they’ve put in.

I personally think that forking mechanisms are one of the most crypto native mechanisms available, but previous efforts to lower the fork threshold have had mixed outcomes. While I would have supported even a 1 Noun fork threshold, I’m willing to sacrifice that belief since it doesn’t represent the views of the DAO.

This was a fun process to battle with internally. My initial response was very "crypto native" and it felt weird to consider aligning with the US government.
However, with many hours spent pondering this, in discussions with lots of nouners and others who have knowledge about this, I came to the conclusion that this is a solid path forward for Nouns.
I understand the perspectives shared from all fronts and have been in the same boat myself as I sailed the seas of change in my own mind.

I'm feeling torn about the recent changes with Nouns. While the innovation is promising it unfortunately excludes certain countries because of the KYC requirements. Contributors have ambitious visions for Nouns to fund impactful work around the globe, but many of these may not be feasible within a DAO structure. Although I appreciate the potential for a new chapter, I'm concerned it may shift the ethos of Nouns. I also wish the costs weren't so high but lawyers eat money like candy. I certainly see why many in the community feel they may not have had as much say in deciding on the specific structure that would be implemented. Voting For but we are definitely torn. - Orca Pod

We trust the process. - PizzaDAO Governance Crew

We recognize the transition to DUNA as an ambitious experiment for Nouns DAO. While we understand its intent, our involvement in Nouns has always been rooted in the core values of the broader crypto ecosystem—values that have allowed Nouns to flourish in the Infinite Garden. From its inception, Nouns has embodied many of these values, which is why we admired the DAO, purchased a Noun, and chose to actively build and participate.

However, we believe Nouns DUNA represents a divergence from these values. When we ask ourselves whether Nouns DUNA will be equally or more permissionless, censorship-resistant, transparent, and decentralized, our answer is, unfortunately, NO on all counts.

These concerns led us to submit Proposal 642, advocating for a fork—an alternative for those who wish to uphold Nouns’ grassroots ethos, and continue a more unstoppable, permissionless experiment. Ultimately, the fork is the only trustless form of minority protection available, and we believe the proposed alternative design of auction revenue vesting will fail to provide true minority protection.

As we reflect on our time within Nouns DAO, the question we are left with is Why are we here?

On the very first NounSwap swap proposal (453), nounounounoun.eth left a VWR that has stuck with us and shaped our understanding of Nouns. It feels fitting to close with:

…anything is possible in code. We can employ any manner of updates that change any part of the project. However, we have recognized that our code is our culture. And changes to code, change culture…

I empathize with members that are against this, and have gone back and forth myself. All things considered, I'm here for the next chapter of the experiment ⌐◨-◨

musings:
I wish laws did not obligate Nouns to KYC grant recipients and/or that members were not at risk for noncompliance. I’m starkly reminded of the “All Fox” meeting on my first day at ShapeShift in 2018 when Erik explained that in order to continue operating, we had no choice but to start requiring KYC from traders. While that chapter in ShapeShift’s journey was bleak, it also enabled the org to survive until new systems were invented (AMMs) that made it possible to sunset our centralized exchange and provide the same functionality without the legal requirement to verify and store users’ identities. In hindsight, I’m grateful that ShapeShift chose the path that enabled it to survive and continue experimenting despite taking what felt like major steps backwards at the time.

Similarly, I hope that this will not be Nouns’ final chapter. While DUNA is a tough pill to swallow, it’s one that at least bears hope for the awesome experiment to continue, and potentially even thrive. If this transition can legitimize Nouns to the traditional world and open the doors to new opportunities for funding and proliferation, it could help bolster the Treasury, which is the top priority imo.

I support DAOs that continue to push against these immoral rules and/or build systems that can transcend them. I also support Nouns continuing to experiment with finding a sustainable path for funding under-funded public goods as an onchain community. Last but not least, I support everyone that’s against this change, and hope we can still be friends <3

⌐◨-◨

I guess it’s never too late to start voting.

If we believe crypto will change the world, it has to be a part of it.
Each step of the journey to make Nouns a major global brand is important.

I am looking forward to seeing how weird Nouns can get in Season 4 ⌐◨-◨

To be honest, I am quite disappointed by the lack of leadership in the Nouns Foundation. After the introduction of the fork with v3—what I consider a turning point for Nouns—we continued to use the treasury in the same manner as before, without actively shaping the direction of the community. Now, as the treasury nears depletion, we appear to be attempting a major shift in the DAO's organizational structure. I wish they had recognized the need for leadership at the time of the first fork. Alternatively, it might have been more consistent to continue the “experiment” until the treasury was fully exhausted.

Voted For.

• Supriyo (On Behalf of Bonfire)

👨‍🦯 Godspeed

in support of the duna but this is a very real feeling. I hope post duna there is less secrecy + less privileged information from the foundation

can't wait to party with Jarmen outside the gate either way

also, thanks to Wylin for answering so many questions and pretty much single handedly convincing me duna is worth supporting

We all dream of a purely onchain modality for Nouns. Unfortunately, real-world implications make this impractical on any meaningful scale.

DUNA is a means to an end. At worst, we attempt to cross the chasm with a crypto-native brand and fail. At best, the combination of a novel legal framework powered by crypto rails enables liquid capital to create something no one could have dared to imagine.

the only way is through!

Voting against the process, and the behind curtain actions, selling me “exploring the duna” after verbs have been focused on designs for months. Doesn't feel like it was a community vote. The members in the meetings control enough votes to force an outcome guess that means it wasn't worth speaking to the little holders prior or even looping us in. I was under the assumption the foundation was empowered to be the holder's legal arm.

Additionally, it's very amusing that the primary conversation around this landed back in a discord. Shame we deleted the main meeting point so conversations are so fragmented resulting in it feeling like you have no clue what is going on here.

Looking forward to wearing my suit in the next meeting if we are allowed to join. If not see you common folk outside the gate.

some of these against VWRs don't make any sense

"this violates the ethos of Ethereum/ crypto"

mock the comparisons to the Ethereum Foundation all you want, they're KYC'ing people too. it's naive and puritanical to think an organization that has distributed $60.5+ million of grants will be ignored by regulatory authorities in perpetuity, or that those authorities can't subpoena your exchange for your KYC info if they want.

power exists in a separate domain from code; this isn't a situation where you can click buttons on your computer to determine state and suddenly men with guns won't show up at your door to enforce a judge's ruling.

success requires acknowledging harsh realities and adapting to them. zealots preach, pragmatists win.

other than Milad aka Nekofar aka Lulu, the loudest against opinions seems to be from people who don't participate in the social layer of the DAO other than to shill their projects, and barely even participate in governance

"the Foundation should be removed not empowered"

that's literally the purpose of this proposal.

"If DUNA passes, we will... become an increasingly centralized traditional foundation. We are not moving towards compliance, but towards dictatorship."

"The DUNA framework... provides opportunities... for DAOs that want to hire employees, own real-world property, and enter into legal contracts with other limited liability corporations.

However, Nouns does none of these things. The DUNA is absolutely the wrong tool for the job, and will result in more liability and expenses without providing any benefit."

the DUNA law is tailor made to enshrine decentralization and a flat hierarchical structure. it strongly discourages hiring internal employees outside of of a bare minimum administrator for filing paperwork and receiving mail. there's nothing in the law geared towards or against real estate.

the law is also tailor made to severely limit the liability of token holders and place it all with the DUNA, as compared to the potentially unlimited liability token holders currently face. if this comment was about tax liability, Caymans Foundations already owe the US IRS 47.7% of US generated profits, more than double the 21% for US based corporations

one does not need a law degree to read the text of the legislation and search corporate tax rates to understand this.

the existing Cayman Foundation was created, in part, as a response/ to enable the Bud Light Super Bowl commercial to happen, and a fair number of collaborations with other corporations have been shelved due to the Cayman structure. to say Nouns does not work with other corporations is either a lie or coming from a lack of knowledge of Nouns history

on one hand, I blame the Foundation and their advisors for the dearth of information provided about the DUNA.

it may have cost more money, maybe even requiring the Directors to come out of pocket, but to not disseminate ANY information, not have ANY community calls with the Advisors or the DUNA authors, not proactively proposing independent counsel for token holders and/or a token buyback for fundamentally unaligned members, and keeping the daily auction open for unaligned buyers makes this process significantly messier than it needs to be and makes me wonder what exactly the advisors are being paid for. their foresight seems troublesomely limited

on the other hand, Nouns members generally seem to be above average intelligence people who are capable of reading and understanding complex ideas, and doing research on topics they're interested in

there's not that much information out there on DAO laws and the DUNA. one could spend a full weekend on Google, reading opinions from law firms and watching the handful of videos about the DUNA, and recognize that the statements they're making now are false or based on untrue assumptions. one more weekend and you'd have a comprehensive understanding of the global solutions for DAOs in addition to the DUNA

if an art school dropout farmer like me can do it, there's no reason why others couldn't too. operating on uninformed speculation about what the DUNA is and does is a choice

in moments like these I wonder if Socrates was right about democracy. the disconnect from reality that people who primarily work in bits have, whether code or financial, is troubling to someone who's domain is atoms

whilst this is the end of an era, it is also the beginning of a new one. I hope nouns continues to light the way.

I support common sense crypto legislation and law in the United States. With this move Nouns validates the work that went into the DUNA legislation with a best case scenario organization. We are the best example of crypto doing good, an organization lawmakers can understand and are well positioned to be the face of crypto.

Against it in the current form. A SEC lawsuit would be cheaper

A lot has been said about DUNA, but let me take this opportunity to emphasize a single point: most of what we love about Nouns originates from services provided by doxxed individuals and organizations. Nouns founders, Nouns Foundation, Nounish, Nouns Camp, Nounsfest, Nounstown, Rounds, Esports, the Nouns movie, Nouns Deli, Bigshot Toyworks, and dozens of others will eventually leave unless they are granted a legally compliant organization with sufficient liability protections.

If you are voting against this proposal, please understand that you are not voting for the status quo; you are voting against it. An on-chain maximalist version of Nouns will be almost entirely anonymous and will be very different from the Nouns we know today. A vote for DUNA is a vote for continuing the current experiment, where the collaboration between internet anons and doxxed service providers creates a crypto-native culture that is still capable of transcending the boundaries of this space.

The DUNA framework is a very exciting development that is revolutionary for on-chain organizations. It provides opportunities never before seen for DAOs that want to hire employees, own real-world property, and enter into legal contracts with other limited liability corporations.

However, Nouns does none of these things. The DUNA is absolutely the wrong tool for the job, and will result in more liability and expenses without providing any benefit.

If a subset of Nouns holders want to experiment with creating a non-profit organization that can partner with traditional companies, I am in full support of them creating a sub-DAO or fork and doing just that! But strong-arming Nouns holders into making this change, which is an extreme departure from what brought us all here in the first place, is something I am strongly against. Please vote no.

The discussions surrounding DUNA are extensive, and it's clear there's a lot at stake with this proposal.

My journey into crypto began as a response to the rampant corruption in my country and the even greater issues within the traditional banking system. Nouns, for me, represented a beacon of hope in a space where so many promises have been broken by scams and rug pulls.

While I don't fully align with U.S. corporate structures, I’ve always seen Nouns as a unique example of what a truly decentralized brand can accomplish. That said, if establishing a legal entity is necessary to ensure Nouns future and stability, I am willing to support it, despite my reservations about what it represents.

It’s true that this move feels contrary to the ethos of decentralization and the principles that crypto was built upon. However, Nouns has grown to a point where practical considerations might outweigh ideological purity.

Though I place a high value on privacy, I am in favor of KYC when it comes to money and trust. In my experience, it's often those with malicious intent who seek to hide or keep private their identity.

I think securing the future of Nouns takes over any other priority right now. And I am willing to support this prop with cautious optimism.
I hope we can navigate this without losing sight of what Nouns is and means.
Which are what makes this community so fucking awesome in the first place...

For the long-term interests and development of the DAO, the Nouns Foundation should be removed, not empowered.

Some DAO members are using seemingly politically correct issues to tear apart the entire community and centralize power using the foundation, a complete betrayal of the original value proposition of NounsDAO by DUNA.

If DUNA passes, we will permanently lose a global, permissionless DAO, and instead become an increasingly centralized traditional foundation.

We are not moving towards compliance, but towards dictatorship.

DAO is Decentralized Autonomous Organization.

Let’s fight for decentralization and fight for our freedom.

The proposal to establish Nouns DUNA in Wyoming and fund its first year of operations is strategically aligned with Nouns DAO's need for a robust legal structure. The financial request is substantial but justified given the potential legal and tax benefits. The proposal addresses current liabilities and aims to enhance the DAO's legitimacy and operational efficiency.

The past few weeks, I've had open discussions about the trade-offs of DUNA between those for and against it. I did my best to understand everyone's perspectives fully. If you're out of the loop, here is a simple summary of the effects:

• The fork mechanism is being removed
• KYC is required to receive make props
• All future actions of the DAO must be compliant with US regulations

Pro-DUNA people believe that being a conventional legal entity is the only way to collaborate with the largest (web2) brands globally. They see the core purpose of Nouns as being an onchain donation platform for IRL grants, and DUNA is optimized strictly for that (Although there has yet to be a real occurrence where this would be actually useful, see: https://warpcast.com/three9s.eth/0xd082548e).

While I think onchain donations for web2 stuff can be valuable, I don't believe this is Nouns' strongest purpose. I see the key strengths of Nouns as:

• Bringing onchain values to the real world — the Nouns brand is a gateway to Ethereum and the principles its community stands for (decentralization, censorship resistance, etc.).
• Bootstrapping identities — Nouns are among the best PFPs, and offer a fair and open mechanism for anyone to join and participate.
• Inclusive participation — community-driven governance structure where the best props get funded.

If we are not fully open and decentralized, these strengths are significantly weakened. The brand's ability to represent Ethereum's core values—like decentralization and censorship resistance—relies on being accessible to anyone, anywhere, without gatekeepers or KYC. Without this openness, Nouns would risk becoming just another exclusive club or corporate entity, disconnected from the broader Ethereum ethos.

This may seem like an over exaggeration, but I think it is the logical conclusion if DUNA passes in it's proposed form.

The effects would be:

• Poor sentimate within the DAO due to people who believe in these values no longer aligned with the new direction (and stuck due of fork removal).
• Fewer funds because there will be less desire to buy a Noun (because it is too risky due to fork removal).
• Anons being treated as 2nd-class citizens, having to route through trusted KYC'd individuals (the "Nouns administration") to receive grants.

These aren't all the downsides, but these are the ones most obvious.

HOWEVER, even if you are still not opposed to DUNA for the above reasons, there is another reason I strongly encourage you to vote against the proposal: the unfair and unjust behavior of the Nouns inner circle pushing for this.

The reasonable thing to be for the pro-DUNA folks to fork Nouns and that would be the web2-centric fork. The next most reasonable thing would be for the anti-DUNA folks to fork and that would be the web3-centric fork. Instead of this, the majority holders have shot down multiple proposals to bring the fork threshold down to a reasonable level (https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/642).

This is trying to force those who joined a free, permissionless protocol to be part of this new regulatory entity against their will. That is a disgusting injustice, and it brings great shame to Nouns.