Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

ncitron.eth pfp
ncitron.eth
@ncitron.eth
1 reply
4 recasts
13 reactions

Pedro pfp
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 pfp
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 pfp
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 pfp
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 pfp
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