We like music and experiments. The scene certainly needs more shakeups and adjusting for a better future for musicians. Hope to see this flourish. Would love to see it support builder DAO long term somehow, beyond using the infrastructure.

curated platforms like fam will allow users to find high signal daos and tailor usecases to their specific needs in a way that nouns.build cannot.

I believe that for a million DAOs to prosper we need many interfaces that are tailored to specific communities and use cases. Let’s showcase how Builder Protocol can be the rails that drives culture

I believe it is important to 1) define success in a measurable way not only for the idea itself, but for Builder DAO’s relationship to the prop, and 2) speak more specifically to the ROI for Builder DAO — I would welcome that here as I like the vision, but it is important for us as a nascent platform to dream grandly while being very cost conscious to ensure as much as possible that we’re spending in a way that helps us measure what’s working (and focusing more funds where we see measurable success) — without us stating up front what defines success, our likelihood of spending haphazardly will remain a risk.

What I like: - Expanding the breadth of the protocol (previous props we've funded have mainly been adding only to the depth of it) - Team behind this understands user experience and culture curation - The model works for music communities but it isn't obvious. A tailored platform for this usecase is compelling. Why I'm abstaining: - Post-submission, there were discussions around channeling a % of the platform fee to BuilderDAO. Imo this is a very important piece of info and needs to be included in the proposal. I support this proposal but ultimately abstaining from voting this round for the reason I've stated above. If this doesn't pass, I would like to see a revised proposal with changes derived from community feedback.

excited by the prospect of nouns builder being adapted to different use cases. context is so important.

Fortunate enough to meet and spend a lot of time with Nick at Fest this weekend. I have full confidence in this team and project. Encouraging apps to build on top of the protocol, for their own audience with their own unique spin is exactly what we should be doing as stewards and champions of the protocol.

Would love to see a reworked version of this proposal with clear deliverables and milestones. As it is now will need to vote no.

I love the idea, but I'm also aware of the fact that the team hasn't built anything yet. I would be more comfortable with a smaller exploratory grant to see if the team can deliver before we invest a substantial amount. Start small. Test the idea. Double down if it works.

Voting on behalf of Purple and myself

I want to start by saying that I really like this idea, and the amount requested is fair. The designs are great, and it seems like a great use case for noun-ish DAOs. However, a few things are missing from the proposal that I think should be covered. 1. There's a revenue split element. I love this, but we should know what that split is before dispensing funds. 2. The branding, design, and positioning of the app seem to make sense, but there might need to be a bit more elaboration on how you're going to get people in the music industry to pick it up and start using it. 3. Again 20 ETH seems fair, but I don't think we should yeeting the entire amount right off the bat. This is something I think the DAO should figure out for larger project-based proposals, but milestone releases or a stream make more sense to me. It looks like the proposal will pass, but if it doesn't, I would highly recommend resubmitting it and addressing the issues mentioned above.