Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
How do we hide our eth from the fork that’s starting
4 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
This is an interesting idea to achieve: https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/stake-1k-in-rounds-32d1a53f6709a03f4b6cf4cb0501204ba188d4f5
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Not necessarily against but seems too ultra bullish on rounds. I’m thinking something that can be reversed, similar to buying alien punk just to temporarily diversify assets
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
醓
@pip
could send me the eth and ill send it back when this has blown over
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
How much interest
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Agreed. But, of all the existing project to stake into, its probably the best. It sets aside means to fund builders via rounds and is outside of the control of the DAO. Jokes aside, what @pip said is valid, could be expectations of Rounds returning these funds after a fork. It is quire tricky tho, basically what is being asked for is a way to move funds out of the treasury into a holding account, which can somehow be recaptured later. The problem is that this goes against the whole purpose of the fork, majority can move all funds to this holding account and forkers would get nothing. In the case the forkers are not just arbers looking to exit, and are an honest minority who want to continue, they get screwed. Might as well just disable the fork if we are going to move funds into holding to shelter them.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea I mean I’d be down to disable to fork too I think that’s definitely the better option. I dont think honest minority protection is worth it when that’s mostly a hypothetical and what’s not a hypothetical is nouns getting drained by arbers for the 3rd (4th?) time
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Yea, needs more thought, but I might lean towards: * Disabling the fork * Enable proportional exit all the time This will bring Nouns floor to BV, allow people to still exit if they want, and remove these large events of mass exit and extraction via forking. Arbers will always be there, but less impact. If a minority group wants to "fork", they still can still do so by exiting and deploying a new DAO together. I think protecting against the hypothetical is still important for the long term vision of Nouns even if its unlikely or has not happened yet, but think this could be a happy medium.
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Ya I think there’s some happy medium where rq can happen at any time but only for 30 day trailing avg or something like that. Or something like whatever it was bought for, but then early nouns have huge arb op if you buy on secondary for a loss from the original purchaser
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
