On the Formation of a LilNouns Subcommittee to Audit, Identify, and Bridge Synergistic Props for Wider Community Value Creation

Hi Everyone!

I’m relatively new to the Nouns ecosystem but excited about the overall Nouns ethos :slight_smile:

In listening to today’s Nouncil call and upon hearing that Lil Nouns serves as the quasi unofficial onboarder for new builders/creators, I had the idea that you might be the best DAO to address this inefficiency.

So, I see a lot of work has been done within the community. With some documented on nouns.center and/or on the DAO github repo, or within the git repositories of the subDAOs.

One clear inefficiency I’ve identified is the amount of “one-off” props I’ve seen funded. Things like, videos, games, installations, etc …

As anyone that’s familiar with the open source community knows, we all stand on the shoulders of others, with one builder/creator using a particular code snippet, or asset from another project within their own to create something new and so on.

Since Lil Nouns has that front facing role for new creators I’m proposing to form an internal committee within Lil Nouns made up of experts from within the Nouns ecosystem with an assortment of backgrounds to identify recent and/or past funded props that needed/needs that extra “push” to make their creation beneficial to the wider Nouns ecosystem.

By this I mean, let’s take the creation of a 3D animation video as an example. Creating such work, in it of itself, requires a team or an individual with a diverse set of skills - ranging from storytelling, copy, audio, to 3D sculpting, asset optimization, lighting, direction etc … Let’s say they received funding, got the video made, posted it on Youtube, Twitter, wherever, propagated the Meme, and had great success!

And now, let’s say there’s a new prop, one to build a Nouns video game, or to create a 3D printed IRL art installation. Now, this individual or team could do all the work themselves of modeling, but if they had access to the work of that prior 3D animation video prop recipient, they might be able to put forth a proposal at half the cost and delivered within half the time (for argument’s sake) because now, they no longer need to start from scratch.

Ok, now let’s say that the 3D animation studio did release their 3D assets, but it’s formatted in Maya or Cinema 3D with some funky rigging. That may be fine for the 3D installation artist, but for the game developer, that may add a significant amount of work, perhaps to the point of being too much (and hence better to start from scratch). But if that 3D animation studio put in the extra work to then optimize their 3D assets and release them as game-ready and fully rigged FBX files, that all of a sudden becomes a much more useful asset for the prospective game developer. The problem is, that the 3D animation studio had no incentive to do this, their only aim was to create that video, release it and if they felt good and generous, to perhaps also release the 3D assets associated with the creation of that video.

If a proposal like this were to pass, and a subcommittee of experts in game development, software engineering, 3D modeling, copy, etc were formed, this group would be able to review new props, identify these misaligned interests and submit new proposals to either compensate that team a little more for generating that extra work that wouldn’t necessarily further their deliverable, but would be useful to future potential proposals, or identify other builders in the community and place them within that prop to carry out and delivery the extra work independently and under the supervision of the subcommittee. Think of this as a useful cost cutting measure.

In large game/animation studios, they do this all the time, reusing assets across different projects to speed up client delivery and reduce costs. The difference between them and a DAO though, is that a company has a clear hierarchy made up of principle engineers/art directors, basically experts in middle-management, that hold interdisciplinary meetings to identify and address these inefficiencies (fully aware a lot of companies don’t do this and “silo” themselves into discrete groups; these are not good examples)

This group would also have the knowledge and experience to address things like IP and interpersonal conflicts/dynamics.

Another side benefit of this group would be that they would constantly keep a “pulse” on the DAO’s work and serve individually as advisors to the wider community.

Individuals elected to this subcommittee would need to be experts in their field and relatively “senior” with prior management experience. But I suspect the DAO is large/mature enough to have a good pool of people to tap into.

I think for this group to succeed, it’s imperative to have buy-in from Nouns and LilNouns holders. Out of respect for their time and expertise, members would need to feel like their decisions carry weight.

What does everyone think? Are Nouns ready to take this additional leap? Anyone interested in working with me to craft a more refined proposal, to outline and define the bounds/duties/powers and procedures of this prospective committee?

1 Like