Nouns

One Noun, every day, forever.

nouns.wtf

gm, @davidbr and I are working on the $nouns token, backed by Nouns. 
1M $nouns <-> 1 Noun NFT.

you're invited to read this short spec doc and reply with your feedback.
thanks!

part of verbs team, working on nouns things

gm, @davidbr and I are working on the $nouns token, backed by Nouns. 
1M $nouns <-> 1 Noun NFT.

you're invited to read this short spec doc and reply with your feedback.
thanks!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uz4l8bAPaA2_gsUVZsZo_1dAmggAiYIn5sYba1IK10Q/edit?usp=sharing

working on nouns protocol ⌐◨-◨ https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth

Thanks for sharing, very excited for this!

A few questions (in thread):

1. For adjusted total supply, curious why not adjust by the number of Nouns held by the $nouns contract rather than the equivalent portion held by the treasury? The proposed method will make it harder for props to pass if a large number of Nouns are in the $nouns contract.

2. While $nouns will be great to help bring people into Nouns, it also add an easy exit route for Noun owners (easier than a fork, or selling). Will there be a supply cap on $nouns or any kind of deposit rate limit to try to prevent a mass exit event?

3. Curious about community sentiment on fungibility. NounSwap was rejected in a large part because it “made Nouns fungible”. $nouns does this to to an extreme, and NounSwap could be built directly on-top of $nouns. Is there support for $nouns from folks whom opposed NounSwap due to fungibility concerns?

good Qs. 

i think nounswap and $nouns has some overlap but isn't addressing the same goal. $nouns doesn't make the entirety of the 500+ treasury nouns available for bid / fungible. only whatever the dao deposits into the $nouns contract. i imagine any point in time that's likely less then 50 treasury nouns (<10%)

shared a bit here. i think it's a misnomer that $nouns makes all treasury nouns fungible.

shared a bit here. i think it's a misnomer that $nouns makes all treasury nouns fungible. https://warpcast.com/noun40/0x99574a92

Removing the functionality to allow melting a Noun for 1M $nouns fixes all these concerns.

Make $nouns only mintable by the treasury, and use it to reward builders. 

This is the “vending machine” redemption token we proposed with v2 of NounSwap (in our first iteration):

https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/457

I see where you are coming from. But, in both iterations of NounSwap we proposed a mechanism to limit the number of treasury Nouns permitted to be swapped via excluding ID's below a threshold, effectively achieving the same thing.

IMO, this is a better approach:

yeah but i think in the context of nounswap props given the goal was to make treasury nouns available for swapping / bidding i think most would have imagined a larger portion being available (it’s more “excluding” rather than “including” in that case of $nouns) so don’t think quite the same practically

I see where you are coming from. But, in both iterations of NounSwap we proposed a mechanism to limit the number of treasury Nouns permitted to be swapped via excluding ID's below a threshold, effectively achieving the same thing.

IMO, this is a better approach:
https://warpcast.com/spencerperkins.eth/0xe6238761