When I saw prop 392, my first thought was “I don’t have the energy for this right now.”

I do not want to write this. I don’t want to have to femme-splain (is that a word?) all the problems with this prop. It opens me up to a whole bunch of potential criticism and bs that I just don’t want to deal with. I don’t want to have to call on my brothers in the DAO to step up and do the right thing here.

But who else will if I don’t speak up in this moment? It’s too important so here we go. And I’m going to be as diplomatic as possible so please read between the lines where needed.

This prop is “problematic”

“Note: The project's creators have chosen to maintain their anonymity, prioritizing a focus on the project's message and artistic vision rather than individual recognition.”

Problem 1: Team who’s so concerned about connecting their reputation to this prop they insist on staying anon. 🚩🚩🚩

“The tone of the project will be one of inclusivity, respect, and open-mindedness.” If this is true then why are the proposers anon?

If you’re not willing to stand behind your prop this begs the question why? If there’s nothing seedy about this, shouldn’t you be proud to present this to the DAO? If not, I question your motives with this type of prop.

Problem 2:

“These pieces will be thoughtfully curated to explore various facets of sensuality, including its ties to human emotions and the natural world.”

By whom? How do we know you have the skills or eye for this type of curation?

There are no mock-ups or any description of what the images may look like so no way to know if they will actually be “inclusive” and “respectful.” And what does inclusivity even mean to you anon?

Problem 3: the artist. DYOR for yourself on that one. I do not think it is wise to make this connection via funding this particular artist. And if something does go wrong with this, could there be legal liability for the DAO?

Women as objects vs muses

There is a long history of nudity in art. Some quite beautiful and classic. But that history also shows that much of it was framed in that way but in reality women were used, taken advantage of, and objectified. Again because the proposer(s) are anon and due to this particular artist there is absolutely no way to know what direction this will land. A risk that has no up side here.

What some may claim is “sensuality” others will see clearly as objectification and it will be yet another reason for women to see Nouns as a boys club. There are many amazing women founders, artists, influencers who could afford to buy Nouns. But they don’t. Ever ask yourselves why?

And I know what you’re thinking …

“But Prof, it’s cc0 they could do it anyway?”

Yes, BUT we don’t have to fund it.

“Well someone is eventually going to do something like this. Why not ensure a more artistic route?”

Sure, BUT we don’t have to fund it.

“Anonymity is part of the ethos of web3. Shouldn’t builders be able to stay anon?”

Of course, BUT we don’t have to fund it.

Passing this prop signals to the world that Nouns supports this project and this artist. If the proposer(s) are so convinced of its merits, they could put it out in the world and individual Nouners and others could support by buying the art if they want. If it has product/market it and is truly all the things the prop purports it to be, then it will find an audience.

But WE don’t have to fund it.