reason :
+1
> Klim is a wonderful contributor to this community, but we simply can't set the precedent that arbitrary self-directed unaccountable spending will be refunded by the DAO (even if it produces good results).
>
> I would personally support an actual retro funding proposal that focuses exclusively on Klim's contributions (not his expenses) and gifts 3-5 Nouns, as well as cash compensation that offsets the tax obligation.
+1
> I struggle with this proposal.
>
> Not because I don’t want to support Klim. I’ve supported him as much as possible throughout the last 2 years and still want to support him in the future. Klim makes world-class products. I also believe that we should hold each other to a minimum standard in proposals by providing at least equal parts of story vs actual figures.
>
> I struggle with this proposal because it’s trying to convey a narrative and personal feeling as hard facts. But there’s no evidence offered.
>
> “Klim has self-funded a vast majority of his work.” > Honestly, I’m really not sure about this. I’m not going to do the math for you. It’s the proposers job to at least make it easy to validate / verify.
>
> Why is there not a single mention of the funding Klim received? > The proposal makes it look like all the pins, fun noggles, and nounish friends, etc. were self-funded.
>
> Additionally, how the proposal is written makes it unclear in which category this funding belongs?
>
> Is this a retroactive fund for doing things out of scope? > What was in- vs out of scope? What were the experiments that went well that we could consider retroactively funding? What are the success stories?
>
> Or is this a retroactive reward for your work? Fair enough if it is. Present some eye candy images, clips and highlight metrics. Job done.
>
> Or is this a proposal for future projects? > “With retroactive funding, he will be able to scale Nounish products, attend more global events, and continue creating memorable physical experiences that bring Nouns to life.” > If it’s not, you’re just postponing whatever issue is prominent now into the future.
>
> What’s also a bit concerning is for anyone asking about the actual financial impact, they're hit with answers ranging from (paraphrasing) “I’m not good with spreadsheets” to “I don’t have access to my files because of the hurricanes.” > —> Is this a disaster relief?
> Fair enough if it is. If that's case, say it. Because if it’s not, I’d rather have Chris and Klim spend more time working out the delta between (funding received + revenue) - spending. Even if it turns out to be 4x the amount of this ask, at least there would be clarity, and we can collectively rip off the bandaid.
>
> There’s a certain scent of resentment in the on-chain air with a flavor of “it’s never enough” - it’s either not enough funding, not enough support, not enough distribution, not enough coordination, not enough consumers or not enough collaboration, etc. never enough.
>
> Parts of me wish this proposal would simply pass - and I think it will - so we can get over it, move on and see this sentiment evaporate. But it doesn't appear that anybody actually knows if this will be enough.
>
> There are many good reasons for different types of retros: Klim does great work! (!!!) and delivers many tokens of joy! I'm sure if numbers are properly addressed, that there is a reasonable and appropriate ask for retro funding some of the activities too.
>
> As it stands now, I highly disagree with how this precedent is being presented without sharing the full picture.
A transaction is a cryptographically signed instruction that changes the blockchain state. Block explorers track the details of all transactions in the network. Learn more about transactions in our Knowledge Base.