Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Path to making $nouns useful and scalable: 1. Get it audited 2. Exclude $nouns’ Noun balance from totalAdjustedSupply (NounsDAOFork lib upgrade + NounsDAOLogicV4 upgrade to consume new lib) 3. Deposit some treasury Nouns (top N ID’s) 4. LP some of the $nouns, and distribute others as builder rewards Benefits: * $nouns won’t break governance quorum * More LP means less slippage, making it more feasible to use $nouns as a medium of exchange within the Noun ecosystem * Fractional treasury Noun distribution for builders rather then giving full Noun’s, which are mostly not being used (and themselves, hurting quorum) Prop 536 failed largely due to regulatory uncertainty and liability, but DUNA might solve this? Thoughts? cc @noun40 @el4d @davidbr
5 replies
4 recasts
25 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
What ever happened to the ascii nouns prop? Also supportive of the above but worried about fracture from a new token And the proportional voting power of ascii nouns is attractive, feels like a better coin overall Just not sure what the deal is, haven’t heard anything in a minute cc @wylin
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
wylin💎↑
@wylin
the audit didn’t pass when we put it up; can resend the audit prop at anytime, code’s ready to go the governance process is important, kind of the fundamental thing that Nouns is, so no desire to leverage DAO-wide resources for a personal project or just send it anyways when the proposal doesn’t pass i get the space is permissionless but sometimes it’s important to show restraint. the core thesis of Nouns is bootstrapping governance & identity onchain; putting the token out after the prop not passing totally flies in the face of that and would be a bad look. imo the design of $nouns is fundamentally broken and blacklisting the Nouns in its contract doesn’t solve that i understand the sunk costs for a site like NounSwap but all it does is make people bag holders
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
