Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
It’s interesting to see people using this vote to re-litigate the fork as a mechanism. Saying “I don’t like the fork so let’s make it not work very well” seems odd https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/642?tab=activity
3 replies
21 recasts
76 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
The most compelling case against this prop and the fork is how it affects the daos ability to claim non profit status as (and if) it transitions to a duna But yea, saying “arber bad” is a misunderstanding. The irony is folks want to lower the threshold so they can leave a duna nouns, but cannot, because doing so would harm the chances of the dao becoming a duna. My take is that if forking harms the chances of becoming a duna so severely, those in favor (foundation, wag, etc) should have made sure an alt minority protection mechanism was in place before going live with duna prop and pulling the fire alarm on fork
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
wylin is right here afaik wag also have an idea to let minority holders leave vis proposal? not sure if publically communicated
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
it's been communicated in bits and pieces, I think the intent and goodwill is there, but should have been explicitly designed for before pushing for duna so severely. those in the know about duna must have known fork was a no no and that minority protection via fork was thus as risk. As such, it would have been nice to have seen something like, "hey we want duna, fork harms our ability to become a duna, so if you want out, here is a new mechanism we are proposing that allows for it" how it's being treated right now feels like those who support fork with intentions of minority protection are being villainized for "ruining duna" yet it seems entirely predictable that folks would want out due to such a drastic change, and expecting those who want out to trust that a refund will come feels wrong too. really would have expected those pushing for duna to have had the foresight to replace minority protection with something that is compatible with their own demands
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
its like: "We want to do duna, and know that some of you won't like it. But if you leave, we can't do duna. So, it's up to you guys that don't like duna to come up with a way out that is compliant with what _we_ want to do, which is duna" if fork is such a obvious duna killer, not coming to the table with a well thought out new mechanism for minority protection feels short sighted
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
and btw -- I like duna. But I also appreciate that those who do not like it should have minority protection. This is quite literally the exact scenario the fork is supposed to protect against. I get it -- it puts duna at risk. but this is why if its genuinely so existential to duna, if those who fully support duna have good will about minority protection they should be ensuring a compliant minority protection mechanism that meets their criteria is put in place and not leaving it as an after thought or exercise for the minority how it's being treated right now makes me feel like its 1. not that existential 2. people don't actually care about minority protection if they aren't in the minority
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
