Props 8 & 9 - have strong governance controls that reflect the needs of an early project. Especially with little funds and no real consistency from the contributing team outside of arguing about documentation. Primarily objections across warpcast, and discord come from 2 individuals, 1 of whose actions in resigning kick started this whole drama. And yes drama is accurate. While there are some valid concerns about the governance specifics that previously passed, the vast majority of grievances that are best read as a projection of the real intent of a disgruntled individual and their co conspirator. I’m voting against, primarily because this proposal seeks to overturn props 8&9 which establish governance, but more importantly removes executive leadership controls from someone who’s actions in this project and across multiple IRL projects has shown their character and reputation to be untrustworthy and unbecoming of someone in web3. We talk a lot of onchain accountability, but given that the vast majority of this still happen off chain, we can’t ignore those patterns of behaviors and ignore them as to not influence our vote. Our community is only as strong as its members, and it’s important that we have zero tolerance for those who lie & grift in the web3 community.

Section 2 of this proposal highlights something we can’t ignore — a serious drift toward centralized control. As someone working across creative networks, I can tell you point blank: no gallery, collector, or collaborator I know is going to engage with a DAO run by an unelected council, where major decisions get made behind closed doors. We’ve already seen actions like removing signers from the multisig and the transfer of DAO-owned Builder tokens on April 9th — both clear governance-level moves — carried out without any proposal or DAO vote. That’s not operational, that’s political. And it sets a dangerous precedent. Over the past few weeks, I’ve watched Swarthy try again and again to get clarity and dialogue around these issues. I’ve read the threads, and I’ve been in the rooms. Two weeks with no response? That’s not leadership. That’s avoidance. And it’s not what this community deserves. I was also with Swarthy on June 10th when the early drafts of what became props 8 and 9 were introduced. Like others, I walked away thinking we were beginning a conversation, not ending one. The idea that something this structural would be locked and passed over a holiday weekend — without time for feedback or edits — feels not just rushed, but coordinated. Days before, Bob (Zamees) had said that foundational governance would move slowly and deliberately. That it would be built with the community and consensus. So why this sprint? Prop 10 doesn’t make wild demands. It asks for basic accountability: • An audit of control and flows • A transparency report on wallets and activity • And a transition to founder-led governance, using the original Founder Shovel token holders — folks who were here from the start and are ready to step up with BrightID and public accountability That’s not a power grab. That’s a reset button. And it’s a path forward that puts trust and transparency back at the center of this DAO.

A few things everyone should know: + At this fledgling stage of City Nouns Wyoming LLC law guided founder duties, including how we responded to Mary’s resignation and asset sabotage in our efforts to stabilize the DAO. + Connor, who they falsely claimed was a fake persona, has publicly confirmed both his identity and his council role. By simple math (Ryan, Bob, Connor, FailOften), this discounts their "Bob has multi-sig control" conspiracy. + My so-called “Sybil wallet,” which they’ve misrepresented repeatedly, is a delegation wallet that gave Mary the tokens she used to submit a Builder DAO proposal just two months ago. + Wallets I sent tokens to have participated in the community, and they are people with real-world expertise to help this project succeed. Some of them are token holders and two of them are on the council multi-sig. + Members of their own faction have transferred tokens to wallets that are both actively voting, doing exactly what they’re attacking others for. + They’ve threatened to ruin my reputation and are now openly harassing other DAO members in Discord simply based on how they voted. + The hypocrisy in posting Prop 10 with no discussion window, while complaining that Props 8 & 9 weren't discussed enough even though they were up for discussion for 2.5 days. + Mary, as a recipient of a Golden Shovel NFT, would be reinstated via a back door if Prop 10 passes. + Any Nouns Builder auction can be settled by any connected wallet. + And so much more... Instead, they keep posting about the conspiracy they’ve manufacturerd— tagging and mentioning us over 60 times across Warpcast, Discord (City + Builder), X, and even LinkedIn. Their demands? That those they’ve labeled as guilty must now prove their innocence. This is textbook bad-faith behavior.

Governance should reflect the community, not control it. The facts speak for themselves. It's all onchain.

Hello, this is Zamees’ (Bob’s) delegation wallet. It’s been labeled a “Sybil wallet” repeatedly this week by Mary and others — which is ironic, considering that on April 18, I used this exact wallet to delegate tokens to Mary (af502) so she could submit a proposal to Builder DAO. That context is conveniently missing from the 50+ public mentions, tags, and references they’ve made just this past week across Warpcast, Discord (Builder and City), X, their Notion site, and in this very proposal — all part of a harassment campaign that includes threats of legal action, public mischaracterizations and repeated efforts to undermine my credibility. Keep that in mind when they DM you with their fabrications. And if you wish, feel free to document and forward me anything they say for my records. For context: in Nouns Builder, all-or-nothing delegation is standard. It’s not uncommon for large token holders to use secondary wallets to delegate-sponsor proposals from others who don’t meet the token threshold to publish. Mary herself has used two wallets to vote in City Nouns. So let’s be clear: accusing others of Sybil behavior while doing the same thing is not governance, it’s performative outrage. You’d be right to wonder what else they’re conveniently leaving out to prop up their narrative.

I sat out Props 8 and 9 to get context. Voting against this one—the reversals, infighting, and personal attacks say more than the proposal does. This isn’t the way forward.

Feels like a waste of time. Can we just move forward instead of backwards?

☠️ Arrr, I Cast Me Vote: A Resounding YES! ☠️ By the code of the sea, I, a humble sailor o’ the blockchain brine, vote AYE on this proposal to chart a course away from the scallywags who hoard power like cursed gold. This vessel called City Nouns be adrift, commandeered by founders who cling to control like barnacles on a brig. They cast out mates without vote nor voice, stacked the crew with their own kin, and flew false flags of decentralization. Such mutiny against the DAO’s true compass can’t be left unchecked! Let the multisigs be frozen, the doubloons accounted for, and the Council be rightfully filled by them who earned their tokens fair and square. No more ghost votes from sybil fleets. No more founders playing captain, crew, and cook all at once. 🦜 A YES vote rights the ship, returns the booty Builder DAO, and restores the helm to the hands of the people. Let the winds of transparency blow and the tides of community rise! Raise the black flag, mates. I vote YES! 🏴‍☠️

The veto mechanism alone should stop us in our tracks. No DAO committed to decentralization can justify a structure where unelected signers have unilateral, unchallengeable authority. Yet that’s exactly what Prop 8 introduced — indefinite veto power concentrated in a closed multisig, without an expiration, override, or community mandate. Section 2 of this proposal outlines a troubling consolidation of power. Council members were appointed with no open process, critical governance moves like signer removals were carried out without DAO approval, and a consistent pattern of after-the-fact disclosures has left contributors confused and disengaged. These are not fringe grievances — they cut to the core of how this DAO operates and whether anyone outside the founding team truly holds any influence. That said, I want to be clear: I don’t believe this is irreversible. I’ve been a consistent and sometimes loud voice because I care about what this DAO could still become. There’s been real effort from talented people in the early weeks — but we have to acknowledge the growing gap between our principles and our practices. Transparency, consent, and shared governance cannot just be slogans. This proposal doesn’t ask for perfection. It asks for three basic steps: an audit of current structures, a transparency report to help rebuild trust, and a temporary transition of governance power to the first wave of auction participants — the holders of Founder Shovel tokens — who’ve shown investment and presence since day one. If we can’t agree to even this modest course correction, I fear the message we send is clear: power once taken won’t be shared again. I’m voting yes — not out of anger, but because I still believe it’s not too late to get this right.

There's something in the city's water but I drink from my rain collection barrels and have not been infected. Are Mary and bro together and having a public breakup? How could this have gotten so far off the path to success?⌐◨-◨

This proposal fundamentally misunderstands our Global DAO's evolution and governance structure. Only City Noun NFT holders possess voting rights, not golden shovel holders who may lack actual governance tokens. The "Sybil wallet" allegations represent manufactured controversy rather than legitimate governance concerns. Our Global DAO began following the traditional Nouns model of NFT sales and public good initiatives. As active founders, we developed strategic plans to expand this concept significantly. These ambitious projects require consistent leadership and operational expertise, not committee management by random parties. The proposal's advocates may see their extensive research as constructive, evidenced by detailed appendices and compiled BaseScan transaction data. However, people often feel accomplished when pursuing alternative agendas/alternative facts, regardless of actual benefit to the organization. Their engagement pattern prioritizes social channel criticism over meaningful participation with future plans, suggesting focus on disruption rather than collaborative building. I remain a committed DAO participant, but experience demonstrates how destructive dynamics can paralyze promising organizations. Strategic initiatives requiring mature operational leadership will transition to separate business structures where they can flourish without interference. Our Nouns KC initiative may or may not incorporate municipal applications, having observed firsthand how governance theater undermines substantive progress. This choice reflects broader ecosystem health. NFT holders must decide whether to preserve operational capacity for meaningful innovation or surrender control to parties whose primary contribution appears to be manufactured controversy and demands for power over our collective success.

The new business hit squad. The DAO has barely started and teenagers are littering the Discord. It's been established that one founder obviously quit and we're on a vanity coaster. Maybe that's why things are behind (although it's a false sense of urgency)? It must be a generational thing that quitting doesn't mean quitting, and the entitlement of I can quit and come as I want. New world. "give us your business, we read about it online! And voted!"