Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction

W1NTΞR pfp
W1NTΞR
@w1nt3r
gm! @zherring and I have revised our Nouns prop https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/level-up-auction-ux-with-nouns-terminal-1e79b045dc29eae9fdc69673c9dcd7c53e5e159d We're overflowing with ideas of daily experiences that could really mesh well with Nouns auctions!
4 replies
1 recast
52 reactions

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Hey Winter, I love the work here. What are your thoughts on beefing up the client incentives and asking nouns terminal to be a player in the client incentives game? Right now we have many clients all competing to be the “de facto” new auction client and I think it would be more fair to lean into client incentives rewarding clients for their work so the rewards are distributed to all clients as they bring in users. Funding this prop up front feels unfair to the other clients who are competing. What might it take for this to seem like a worthwhile path for your team? Would we need higher client incentives? More transparency around how that works? Thanks for the proposal, I really like your tool and the work you’ve put into the space.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Zach pfp
Zach
@zherring
Appreciate the feedback and context! I wasn't aware of the other clients. Just wanted to share my POV, @w1nt3r should feel free to contradict It's hard to say what amount of fees seems reasonable given how geo/COL weighs against that. I think you can look at opportunity cost as normalizer though, opportunity in crypto is relatively the same globally, all projects are competing for the same number of crypto builders, some better, some worse etc. So just to say, imo, $100k (2.5E X 365 X 5%) isn't enough to really incentivize innovation building given the opportunities in the ecosystem. I can see it properly pays for infra and 1-2 part time maintainers, so honestly, probably, the right fee for a settled product but innovation requires a lot of hours, trial, error, hits, misses etc. and it's, imo, impossible to do well if it's only the occasional focus as folks find time and interest. Potential outcomes either need to be more predictable or have a higher variance in outcomes to incentivize bigger swings imo
4 replies
0 recast
1 reaction

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yup great feedback, thanks Zach. I think it would be great to get the conversation rolling without nouns to what it would take to beef up the client incentive program to make it more predictable or comfortable for developers. Re: other clients - nounswap.wtf is acting as an auction site, probe.wtf, pronouns.gg as well. There are a few clients now from teams who I think would all be interested if the client incentive program was beefed up a bit.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

W1NTΞR pfp
W1NTΞR
@w1nt3r
Nouns.sh is showing an icon next to bids that were placed using client incentives. Scrolling back, looks like only probe so far managed to bring a few winning bids
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea, it’s challenging to bring bidders away from nouns.wtf but my suspicion is all of the clients I listed above are trying to get bidders and would appreciate the client incentives. @spencerperkins.eth / @coleperkins any plans for nounswap to lean into client incentives? My point is, it feels healthier for the dao to lean into the client incentives program to encourage new clients. We can’t give 200k to every client that wants to grow, and if we give 200k to one we are essentially blessing it as THE client. So it feels more fair to instead re-evaluate client incentives and assess what it would take for it to feel more fair to builders. I’d personally support doubling or tripling the client incentives if it meant builders felt more supported. It feels more fair to all builders this way
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Yes, we want to lean into client incentives and have been trying to. But, as @zherring pointed out, the economics do not make sense to expect auction client incentives to fully fund the development of innovative clients. Client incentive parameters were set when auction prices were ~3x current, and it is very challenging to attract bidders competing against the nouns.wtf auction. NounSwap has only had one winning bid, and <15% of all winning bids have been through alternative clients since client incentives were launched. I see the role of auction client incentives only for sustaining successful clients at this point. I have seen Camp used as a counter-example, and while they’ve built a great product, it’s a very different situation. They were funded 50 ETH, and are streamed $33k USD per month plus client incentives. They also have the advantage of broken governance on nouns.wtf, so Nouners were forced to look elsewhere.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction