Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
david
@davidbr
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
4 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Joel Cares
@joel
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.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
Ultimately, to fix a lot of things, we need Nouns to have meme value above book value. Then there's some risk to the arb attempt. What if after a huge spend we got more attention, auction prices rose, and they were forced to buy back in at a loss.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
david
@davidbr
this is a risk in the current state. with % exit, nouns are heavily valued based on their exit value. there is no arb on the noun value in that sense. you exit before a spend, and buy back into a dao where your the same ETH buys a larger % of the dao, *regardless of the auction price*
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
Ah yeah - just understanding that point now. So with a big spend looming it's rational to quit and rejoin right after, because your ETH goes further.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
I think adding friction to rage quit would help. There could be exit penalties, so you never actually quit with your full proportional share of the treasury. Possibly the full entitlement has to be earned somehow.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
Random idea... what if the proportion you're entitled to decays the higher your bid is above book value. So buying up to book value makes logical sense, because you can go and claim that value back from the treasury. But anything paid in excess of book value has a reduced claim to the treasury.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
@w-g would that be loco?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
Further idea dump: What if we implemented the Nouns token as an ERC-6551 account, and had a Nounish Stock token that represented a Nouns claim to the treasury. The Nounish Stock token could only be held in Nouns wallets, so its fungible but only between Nouns tokens.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
david
@davidbr
Would the stock token be transferable?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
Yeah, although unsure if the secondary effects of that undermine what I'm trying to do... ie whales could transfer all stock to one Noun, exit with that, and still retain Noun voting power with no stock / claim to the treasury.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
