One Noun, every day, forever.

nouns.wtf

Nouns

some thoughts on % exit: if every dao spend proportionally reduces the exit value, sounds rational to exit before a large spend and rejoin after. perhaps difficult if holding many nouns, but makes sense if only holding one?
assuming the dao has no significant income (like today).
wdyt @w-g

part of verbs team, working on nouns things

unless there's a way to value illiquid assets e.g. ongoing proposals

for streams that can be a good solution (would require significant rework). other large spends still suffer from this issue. curious if you have a preferred friction mechanism (as asked in other reply)

Do agree that it points dao increasingly towards incremental spends (again more a function of reducing threshold) which I think is a good direction. Not sure if streaming payments can be reworked so that they debit the treasury/exit pool directly over time, for example. It also makes the risk of rug more bi-directional

did you have any thoughts on the type of friction to add to % exit?

Isn’t this rightwise a discussion about quit/fork threshold rather than exit calc? Joel sort of made that point too. With any free/low-friction (o thresh) approach this is a game one can attempt to play. 

What happens, though, if 10 people all try to play the same game?

If Nouns are selling at or below book value I see this happening too. Perhaps it provides some downwards pressure on max proposal size, as larger spends incentivize more arb activity around this. Does make an interesting market game.