Nouns

One Noun, every day, forever.

nouns.wtf

gm, @davidbr and I are working on the $nouns token, backed by Nouns. 
1M $nouns <-> 1 Noun NFT.

you're invited to read this short spec doc and reply with your feedback.
thanks!

part of verbs team, working on nouns things

gm, @davidbr and I are working on the $nouns token, backed by Nouns. 
1M $nouns <-> 1 Noun NFT.

you're invited to read this short spec doc and reply with your feedback.
thanks!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uz4l8bAPaA2_gsUVZsZo_1dAmggAiYIn5sYba1IK10Q/edit?usp=sharing

working on nouns protocol ⌐◨-◨ https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth

Thanks for sharing, very excited for this!

A few questions (in thread):

1. For adjusted total supply, curious why not adjust by the number of Nouns held by the $nouns contract rather than the equivalent portion held by the treasury? The proposed method will make it harder for props to pass if a large number of Nouns are in the $nouns contract.

2. While $nouns will be great to help bring people into Nouns, it also add an easy exit route for Noun owners (easier than a fork, or selling). Will there be a supply cap on $nouns or any kind of deposit rate limit to try to prevent a mass exit event?

How do you imagine the mass exit happening? If people deposit their Nouns, they still need to sell their $nouns. If there are buyers for their $nouns, then it's just changing ownership, not really an exit.

Depositing Nouns would still weaken an attackers power relative to using them to carry out their action.

Your proposed approach is more conservative ✅. But, it will still impact governance, and in the extreme case could completely stall it until $nouns are redeemed. Allowing $nouns holders to vote would fix this.

$nouns allows an instant out for Noun holders, and depending on the price they may be inclined to take it. If new buyers (via DEXs) are speculating, and don’t have the intent to redeem, this is effectively an exit.

This could also lead to governance stall:

$nouns allows an instant out for Noun holders, and depending on the price they may be inclined to take it. If new buyers (via DEXs) are speculating, and don’t have the intent to redeem, this is effectively an exit.

This could also lead to governance stall: https://warpcast.com/spencerperkins.eth/0x4f753382

IIUC your argument that the $nouns pool increases the chances of having more dormant (i.e. non voting) Nouns.
I don't imagine *active* voters to be putting their Nouns into the pool so quickly. I think it could happen, but more gradually, giving the DAO time to adjust quorum params.