Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Very disappointing to see the DAO preventing an honest minority fundamentally misaligned with DUNA from using the fork as it was designed to continue a non-DUNA Nouns DAO. https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/642
2 replies
2 recasts
12 reactions
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
Read my post from earlier today…. Some were scared of a boogie man that didn’t exist. This proposal proved that.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
wiz
@wiz
it 100% still exists and would show if passed
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Gami ⌐◨-◨
@gami
yeah let’s not conflate with 30% for threshold with a dynamic threshold voting majority. assumptions go both ways
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Gami ⌐◨-◨
@gami
30% is less than majority. Proposal voting is majority, with a dynamic threshold. If i were an arber I wouldn’t have revealed my hand yet. This is chess. Not checkers. See @4156 comment.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
It's not really chess when everything is transparent on the blockchain.... Wags would be the only person able to kick off a fork right now.... & if he forked he would lose hundred of thousands of dollars hence why he wants the 'fair exit' so he gets a refund on time decay (getting a much higher refund than BV via a fork) .... so the majority doesn't want fork, they want refunds.... which this would depeg the treasury and leave us much closer to zero than another fork with 70 Nouns leaving (if that fork threshold could even get reached)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
