Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ncitron.eth
@ncitron.eth
1 reply
3 recasts
10 reactions
Pedro
@pedrowww
Is it me or this fork is a fallacy. Why didn't they just refund forkers for the price they had paid, instead of having early participants subsidizing all the late comers?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ncitron.eth
@ncitron.eth
I don't think it's that clear. Secondary sales as well as treasury spend complicates things. Early participants subsidizing latecomers seems to be a common critique of the nouns style distribution though.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Pedro
@pedrowww
I agree but everything being on chain, it would have been relatively simple maths to figure out the amount to transfer per nouns. Seems like they went for the option that would maximize capital transfer to the fork.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ncitron.eth
@ncitron.eth
Well to start that calculation is not possible on chain (without a trusted intermediary supplying the values) as the data is not stored in a way that the evm can use. More importantly, I can then just sell my noun to myself at an inflated price to get an outsized share of the treasury.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Pedro
@pedrowww
Just browsing through the Noun contract, I can easily pull out winning bids for each noun. Why not start there and factor in royalties collected and amount of Treasury spent?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ncitron.eth
@ncitron.eth
Oh I thought you meant give based on last secondary sale price, to account for the fact that many nouns have traded. Thats a reasonable way to do it. It's just a different heuristic on fairness which of course is always up for debate.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Pedro
@pedrowww
Ho no, that would have been a headache 🙃 I think using winning auction price as a reference would have been the most straightforward way to go since the money is not going to Noun holders but to the forked DAO's treasury. It keeps the initial "weight" of the Noun, regardless of secondary sales.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
