Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Ben
@jarmen
Revenue back to purchase nouns is a good intention, Personal preference would to see either the % returned in single bid. Even if that meant noun 1453 was purchased for 10.7e a 80% increase on noun 1452. Thus keep your voting block in parity to the Dao, and not just accumlating a controlling voting block with recycling Dao funded revenue. Maybe ensuring your Dao funded project had the appropriate nouns required to facilitate sponsoring props on chain. At a maximum. I wouldn't be excited seeing a project that became an extremely profitable venture turn into the controlling voting block because they signalled we will return x amount to purchasing nouns. @oshi
3 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
supriyo
@supriyo.eth
its a good question. Shouldnβt profitable ventures out of the dao have better voice in how funds are spent? I personally would prefer it tbh
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Ben
@jarmen
Good in your area shouldnβt overcome the dao to your direction only. Lead by example not by voting power. Just my opinion. A simple plumber with shit for brains π§
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
supriyo
@supriyo.eth
I don't think you can do it long-term unless you commit to keep buying against constant dilution by design. - Contributing revenue through the most native method (auctions) is lowest hanging fruit - Voting power blocks has yet to play out in practice (we haven't seen this happen yet / largest voting block remains nouncil) - If multiple orgs opt for same strat, they need to outcompete each other in auctions to win it. Flywheel then works and in theory, it plugs the downward trend which hasn't seen reversal yet. - too much social capital at stake to use this as a way to hijack DAO spend in your favor(?)
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
