tl;dr:

I am proposing we execute another mandated round for 100 ETH to fund 5 teams @ 20 ETH each with the mandate to build alternative Nouns Governance clients.

Summary

Given the success of our first mandated round, I am proposing that we kick-off a second mandated round for Nouns governance clients. For folks who missed it: an overview of the Nouns Client round:

• 35 proposals from top caliber builders
• 1416 votes casted (a record for Prop House)
• 4 teams funded
• A record breaking % of highly desirable proposals
• Noun-pilled top quality folks

This time around, we’d be inviting builders to propose ideas for an alternative Nouns Governance clients. While our classic nouns.wtf/vote gets the job done, there is a lot more to explore regarding Nouns governance. This might take several directions:

• Delegation marketplace
• Better info curation to make more informed decisions
• New voting mechanisms for Nouners to better signal prior to going on-chain
• Post-funding trackers

The thing to note is that there are good ideas outside of the community and highly competent builders ready to execute on them. Prop House mandated rounds are a way to not only build up the Nouns ecosystem but also onboard top-notch builders as well.

Scope

The mandate would be an open-ended around Nouns Governance such that any client that follows the prompt to improve Nouns Governance is welcome.

The round will be hosted on the Nouns Mandates house with 3 weeks proposal time and 1 week for voting.

Any feedback prior to putting this on-chain is welcome!

Incredibly excited about this. There’s so much design space around this area, and I’m glad to see it explored via a mandated Prop House. We’ve been noodling on some governance clients ideas, and would be excited to pitch them during the next round.

This was the kick in the butt I needed to consolidate a list of governance experiments I’d like to see. Published these ideas in this thread.

I think this is very cool Just thinking that we have more to learn from the first mandated round, so might be worthwhile to wait with this round a bit longer, until we see what people actually end up building, and what the DAO’s reactions might be to those outcomes.

Fair take. What do you think could go off with the first round that would turn us off from moving forward with this? What are the signals/timelines you’d be looking for?

While I agree to some degree, I want to take advantage of builder momentum we currently have. Feels like there’s good pent up demand from highly competent builders wanting to join the ecosystem.

to senecas point, i think i would be in favor of another round even if round 1 projects all turn out to be disasters — the underlying mechanic of prop house mandates are too strong to not cont playing around with