david

@davidbr

65 Following

244 Followers

david pfp

Can you put that bid on a secondary market place? If the auction is lower than your bid, likely someone will scoop it up and sell to you

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

david pfp

The owner is the base standard bridge. I would assume all bridged tokens on base have these warnings

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

What is this screenshot from?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

david pfp

nounswap (and etherscan donation) are the first to earn client incentives from the auction 👏 https://etherscan.io/tx/0x198662f536403e14c3540e42d0e6b9b44566a47806c72885b1ee53766ff29fff

12 replies

5 recasts

38 reactions

david pfp

if we remove it completely, then the DAO would need to vote against all the proposals or the foundation would need to veto.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

as you mentioned earlier, the extreme case is an attacker with quorum votes pushing thousands of proposals. currently defending against it would require someone to cancel all the proposals where the proposer no longer has enough votes. so attacker needs to be willing to spend more gas than the DAO.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

re: proposal spamming currently you can move your nouns to another wallet and propose again, BUT if a proposer's wallet loses their voting power, anyone can cancel that proposal. we were discussing internally whether this spam protection is needed. the current OZ governor contracts don't have this by default.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

I think it can work. So no snapshots, and an NDT can vote only after “maturing” for a prop lifecycle of blocks. Should an NDT be allowed to vote if the Noun owner has changed? eg mint an NDT and then transfer the Noun

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

thanks! Will take a look as soon as we can

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

david pfp

I think wiz is right. It would also require a lot of attention from the DAO to keep blacklisting these pools

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

david pfp

is this assuming not using any checkpoints at all? I think one can still use their Noun to vote, then swap for a new Noun, mint an NDT, vote, swap the Noun, mint a new NDT, vote, and so on... wdyt?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

it's technically possible even now. you can create a proposal that deposits a noun from the treasury, gets $nouns into the treasury, and then transfers those $nouns to any wallet / stream

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

david pfp

let us know if you think of a way once you digest it more

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

david pfp

not sure exactly what you mean by preserving stale delegations. I think upon a noun transfer we could be ok with reseting the delegation or keeping the original one. on NFT exchanges the attack is slightly reduced because buying and selling will usually cost you the spread between the bid & the ask

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

Send us your ideas & feedback. Experimenting with a rounds format to reward the most thoughtful ones!

2 replies

0 recast

9 reactions

david pfp

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

david pfp

it's not a voting pool. the nouns can only be pulled out by burning 1M $nouns

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

david pfp

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

david pfp

This contract is no longer upgradeable. If there’s a future contract with voting abilities we would need to redeem the Nouns in $nouns and deposit them into a new contract.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions