Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
Yes but if you look in the 300s you’ll see a string around the first fork with a lot defeated & cancelled. There have been other pendulum swings. Luckily, I think only one of this 7 was a threshold problem and we should probably fix that. We could see more of this. Is there a way to adjust threshold to remove the nouns that can’t vote sitting in the $nouns swap? cc: @wiz @el4d @davidbr
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
david
@davidbr
I don't think it makes sense to adjust specifically for the $nouns contract. Whoever deposited there decided not to use their voting power. If we want to lower quorum params we can do that regardless of the $nouns contract.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
Yes they decided to not use their voting power but we didn’t vote on that contract having this impact on threshold.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
david
@davidbr
It's equivalent to the depositors not using their nouns to vote. I don't understand what you mean by "having this impact on threshold"
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
It’s different because it’s not that they choose not to vote. They CAN’T vote but those nouns are still included in the total. It’s not “they choose not to vote” they can’t, similar to those forked in the treasury which is subtracted from the total.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
david
@davidbr
it's different. they can vote. if someone sees a proposal they care about, they can get 1M $nouns, swap it for a Noun and vote with it
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
So it’s also an attack vector? Another reason to think through the implications and maybe look at a different approach to these nouns that are sitting in there.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
