Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Lulu
@nekofar.eth
To be fair, they just signaled without slamming their vote to push a proposal through. What they have done so far is completely permissionless; anyone could have done it. Meanwhile, the Nounders block relied on a mix of fear and social influence to push their agenda forward. 🤔
0 reply
1 recast
10 reactions
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lulu
@nekofar.eth
They could’ve taken a cut of the auction revenue and joined in like everyone else if their goal was to stack votes, instead of grabbing control from the start. 🤷♂️
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Goldy ⌐◨-◨
@goldy
You undermine yourself when use such hyperbolic nonsense like “grabbing control from the start” when talking about 10% supply of a hugely active voting body on day 1.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Goldy ⌐◨-◨
@goldy
Additionally this is so easy and pointless to say from outside the arena. We’re coming up on five years they’re about to be depreciated towards zero while the protocol lives on with zero founder compensation in probably the fairest mechanism design anyone has tried for anything even remotely like this.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lulu
@nekofar.eth
Calling it “grabbing control from the start” is not an exaggeration; it is just facts. If you have veto power and a majority voting block right from the beginning, you have control. Selling 1,000 tokens and getting 100 active votes, which is 10% of the active voting body, is no joke. Nouns is not the first DAO, and most DAOs deal with even lower voting turnout, so 10% is a massive block. Add to that no competition in auctions to stack up those votes, and it is basically handing over the keys. 🤷♂️
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
