Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Curious to understand what DUNA solves that wouldn’t be solved with: * Remove the veto * Dissolve Nouns foundation * Further protocolize Nouns (e.g Vrbs streaming)
3 replies
1 recast
14 reactions
krel
@krel
its not clear who will inject money
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Not following, what do you mean?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
imo for any solution proposed, there needs to be a compelling argument for “whos actually putting money into nouns (at scale)” for duna path it gets significantly more probable for institutions to do so eg i love leightons idea of going full protocol but whos the customer?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Thanks for the clarification—very interesting. So, it sounds like one of the main goals of DUNA is to make it easier for institutions to buy Nouns? Do you know if there is existing institutional demand that isn’t being realized due to the current legal structure of the DAO? While opening Nouns to institutions would likely increase demand, I’m not convinced they’re the ideal “customer.” The last thing I’d want is to see Nouns controlled by profit-maximizing institutions. "Who is the customer?" is an important but tough question. In my view, the ideal Nouns owner is “retail”—ordinary people who are genuinely interested in contributing their knowledge and skills toward public goods funding. That said, even though Nouns has become more accessible, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect retail to purchase Nouns at scale. Honestly, I’m not sure who the customer is at scale, and I’m also not convinced the auction will remain the primary revenue source for Nouns in the long term.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Gami ⌐◨-◨
@gami
what would compel an institution to buy nouns?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
