Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp

Michael Gingras (lilfrog)

@frog

307 Following
352 Followers
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I think we see < 1 eth auction price by eoy
12 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Re: proliferation by slapping nogs on something and calling it a strategy for attracting new nouners
1 reply
0 recast
8 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
+for let’s go
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
If the past isn’t addressed or acknowledged then it will simply continue as is. Lots of proposals suffer this same fate, I’m not meaning to pick on this particular proposal but it’s a good example.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I’ve personally looked through many nounish repos on GitHub to learn more about nouns and familiarize myself with code. Even if it’s not directly used it’s still useful. Can’t really say the same for media, at least personally. I think I tend to have a tech view though
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I spent 30 mins this morning trying to understand if 218 even happened at all and the best I could find was that a few 8x12 prints got put in the cafe. Just a terrible use of 200k. And not to pick on 218 this sort of thing happens regularly in the name of meme proliferation. I really think stuff like this needs audit or retro so we can start to notice that routinely pouring money into the efforts might be fun but it’s terrible roi
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I’d go as far to say we need to audit “meme proliferation” I think too much gets away with some loose association to promoting the brand and the reality is that it’s not impactful and a poor use of funds
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
100% agree it’s way easier to reuse code than media
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Is there any way we can open up swapping so it's not put to a vote each time? It's costing attention and eth in the form of vote refunds to have to pass these proposals. I don't think it's very good use of time or money
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Hoka tecton x2 for trail. Saucony endorphin line for road training and nike vapor fly for racing. I want to try adidas terrex carbon plated trail shoe though
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I’m not sure how to say this without sounding like an asshole but I think when there’s an active round with the intention of rewarding productive conversation around something like protocol we should avoid off topic casts in such channels like gm or memes
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I guess the problem is that once you do have an honest minority needing to exit they are the minority and will not be able to pass a proposal re introducing a fork mechanism. But… I still agree with you. Fork for minority protection feels like a midcurve / muh decentralization type of thing
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
why reduce fork to have one final fork vs just remove the fork right now? I don't see the benefit in allowing one more fork
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
not a bad idea but what if we exhaust our entire tech budget and the some absolute banger of a proposer comes through that is a hell yes from everyone, but we've exhaused the budget for tech already? Also, I feel like the existence of categories makes it easier to justify spending through those categories and might lead to spending that shouldn't have happened
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Ya, what are your thoughts on wrapper? The only downside I see is that it's requires opt-in behavior, and doesn't feel as "pure". But the purity argument doesn't really stick for me bc if nouns was upgadable we could just add the transfer hooks and wouldn't need opt-in anymore... so it's still a fine solution.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
all good! appreciate the longer explanation here. I'd really love to see this problem solved, I think NDTs are a super fun idea
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Ah okay so I think if I'm understanding the problem is now that as long as you mint all the NDTs to yourself ahead of a proposal and nobody backruns you, can you still have all NDTs and the state of each will have block number ahead of the proposal and owner as yourself. So when I say that you can't swap, vote, swap, vote because block # prevents it, it only prevents it if you try that attack during a proposal, but as long as you've minted before the proposal you are okay. Ok, I'm on the same page I think. Your original cast was a bit hard for me to follow but I'm coming around to why you would need to know when the original noun is transferred in order to null the owner state on the NDT
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Does some combination of block # + owner work? Each of these on their own do not work. Block number -> I can swap for each noun in the pool and mint and NDT ahead of a proposal. As long as nobody backruns me I have overextended my voting power. Owner -> I can swap, vote, swap, vote, swap, vote for each noun in the pool. Block number + owner -> I can't swap, vote, swap, vote because the block number check enforces that I must do this ahead of the proposal and I can't mint x NDTs ahead of time because owner check. Keep track of both of these on the NDT (no need to track transfers, just keep state on the NDT for who held the noun at the time the NDT was minted. No need for token wrapper. Downside is this does not preserve stale NDTs, and does not allow someone to receive an NDT and instantly start voting (which could be confusing) Positives are legibility of voting power, easier subdelegation, coolness factor Where am I going wrong here?
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea, thanks for the perspective!
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea tbf I wasn’t as active in nouns during this stage so I didn’t feel it as acutely. To me it just looks like this giant pool of money vanished with no upside but I can see how it’s nice to have those voters out. I also like having a giant pool of t-nouns to do cool stuff with
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions