Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
Whats the best argument for Nouns NFTs appreciating in value [at some future point] and how do we get there?
3 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
wylin
@wylin
Nouns becomes a 501c3, over the next 18-24 months we partner with X amount of large corporations, they all put in more money to the treasury than they take out. treasury is then mid-high 8 figs + we now have an ongoing Nouns x Coinbase partnership, a Michelin tire company collab, a Crocs shoe collab, + 10 others that have Nouns in the cultural limelight with more capital to distribute via flows & props, and a track record of big collabs that put Nouns into pop culture, plus American crypto regulations quickly gaining clarity and normality, seems bullish probably not ever going to smart for the auction to be the primary revenue part of the memetic flywheel though tbh. let’s go get that corporate money and do some good with it
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
krel
@krel
yeah so the value of the nfts are then derived from how much money is in the treasury? ie the book value? if majority of funds come via partnership and straight treasury injections (not via auction), its not clear why the nfts would hold substantial value except for the function of "protecting"/managing the treasury funds, which is something it just ends up being 2 separate functions: - treasury injections via partnerships/fundraising - nfts sold to offer a seat at the managerial table (but unlikely to be a solid investment, more of a status symbol perhaps)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
wylin
@wylin
i think you nailed it by definition as a DUNA, NFT buyers are not making an investment; there’s no claim to the treasury outside of grant making. if they want to speculate on their grant voting right beanie baby appreciating in value, that’s on them auction floor = cost of having a vote on grants = value derived by Nouns’ ability to draw in people who have genuine interest in governance and impactful grant making, basically the market’s perceived value for entry into the network of people some others have mentioned holder benefits and could do a little bit (ie free merch bags for holders at Nouns Town) but imo since bylaws say we’re a grant making body, best thing is to align the in/out capital incentives for grant making via 501c3 & build a robust culture of “Nouns funds tech/art/grassroots impact. we make grants via flows & NFT-based governance” let the corps & high net worth people fund operations, let the membership be a serendipity machine for interesting people who fit Nouns
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
yeah that seems right aside, but it doesnt seem clear to me here why we should keep auctions going as it becomes quite peripheral to the main activite of fundraising and grant-giving if anything it acts more as a flaw and attack vector for abuse?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
wylin
@wylin
tricky right? here’s my take: 501c3s have a dual-purpose: benefit the public and ease the burden of government in other words, “if your org does what the govt would otherwise end up doing, it gets a special class so you don’t pay taxes” what makes Nouns different, and what major charitable institutions are looking for themselves, is the decentralized, grass roots model most charities have a small board & staff making all the funding decisions. the biggest and best have realized this model limits their impact if Nouns can push for true decentralization of voting, (possibly including divestment by large holders,) and create a governance culture of robust debate where a 120 quorum prop passing is actually 100+ individual For voters, then the potential for collusion and attack vector is superseded but yeah, code trumps paper law so in theory the 51% auction attack is always there + probably other stuff i’m not thinking of
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
krel
@krel
few thoughts to jam on: - i think the grassroots, decentralized model is v interesting and potentially key to everything _if_ we can prove that its also the most efficient model - if truly decentralized, then we cannot espace the impact of whales or activist buyers no matter how much we try to on the cultural layer - and as long as nouns are cheap(ish) it makes an ""attack"" so much easier -- the only way to rectify that is if votes are actually valued and fairly expensive - which might push us pack towards a state where the nft appreciate in value as a function of nouns overall success as a grants body - it seems weird/hard to have a state where a) nouns is decentralized, b) votes are relatively ""worthless"" and c) the treasury is sufficiently protected
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
wylin
@wylin
agreed. need to workshop this mission statement (required to have one for 501) civic engagement/ decentralized democracy means the D in DAO also stands for democracy, and asks of us to focus on empowering people to engage as a voter if they want to that said, following Aristotle’s Politics, having aristocrats - people with more power who use it for the good of the commons - is beneficial to a democracy. we certainly don’t want oligarchs, people with power who use it for their own benefit. flat structures don’t exist in nature, power is never evenly distributed. how this looks mechanistically is a bigger convo; bi-cameral voting body, etc. right now veto admins are our protection
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
