Nouns

One Noun, every day, forever.

nouns.wtf

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

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.

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?