Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Aburra pfp
Aburra
@aburra
New Space: Prop 49 - Purple Legal Wrapper by @benersing @ccarella.eth @dylsteck.eth @cameron @nonlinear.eth @gigamesh @phil @jrf @kmacb.eth @cojo.eth Tue Nov 28 at 11:30am PT / 2:30pm ET / 8:30pm CET aburra.xyz/space/124
36 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
GIGAMΞSH pfp
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
Tangential questions maybe better for future discussion: On @ccarella.eth ‘s point about the Aragon 51% attack, is the assumption that a legal entity helps prevent that? Seems implementing a mechanism for preventing it at the contract layer would be more ideal?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil pfp
phil
@phil
How do I join?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jonny Mack pfp
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
i gotta bounce ty all 💜
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
billzh pfp
billzh
@billzh
I'd love to hear Adam's view on this
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
billzh pfp
billzh
@billzh
Starting now!
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chandresh 🪴 pfp
chandresh 🪴
@chandresh.eth
there should be higher participation for this prop is my last takeaway
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
scottrepreneur pfp
scottrepreneur
@scottrepreneur.eth
'revenue' thus far has been ownership buy-in. Taking in other revenues opens up new liabilities/implications.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
Need to drop, but great conversation, really appreciate the thoughtful discussion
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chandresh 🪴 pfp
chandresh 🪴
@chandresh.eth
i think we should not chase retro PGF, more and more I listen to this i don't want us to think about increasing the treasury to 6 figures and then fund projects, I think of: fund projects with the treasury we have, how big or small shouldn't matter
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
Adam: yeah definitely, reminds me of the Facebook post “you cannot use my data” type of copy-pasta
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
Gotta drop by thankful for everything!
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
Jacob: imo I think you’re hitting on my discomfort. Why create a full on wrapper vs. a minimal disclaimer of sorts and decreasing the surface or risk
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
scottrepreneur pfp
scottrepreneur
@scottrepreneur.eth
If not this grants round, it'd be another opportunity likely.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
Yeah we do. 🫂💥
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
On a meta note: this is a great format for discussion. Proposal vote available, members listening, chat active, proposers present and visible
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chandresh 🪴 pfp
chandresh 🪴
@chandresh.eth
or as high consensus as a legal entity formation prop should have
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chandresh 🪴 pfp
chandresh 🪴
@chandresh.eth
agree on both points, great work done + 45-24 is not as unanimous as other props
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
(That being said, still very grateful for all the work that’s been done)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa pfp
rafa
@rafa
Something else that comes to mind: it feels like this may have also been a “type” of proposal that required a higher level of consensus and maybe explicit agreement, as well as exit mechanism due to its “type 1” decision consequences
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction