Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
w-g
@w-g
if interested in giga-funding rounds &/or improving odds of a liquid $nouns token launch, consider reading this candidate ty https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/stake-1k-in-rounds-32d1a53f6709a03f4b6cf4cb0501204ba188d4f5
2 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
cone70
@noun70
The more neutral way toward this is The Burn. Teams like prop house can then choose their level of long term funding by proposal and the DAO can approve these case by case. IMO a mistake to divert eng resources to client incentives and erc20s over The Burn.
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
w-g
@w-g
but y ideal scenario is , delay $nouns 6 months & enable governance and pfp-minting / in same period digest % exit report and if positive change this also before launch. Then am aligned with the erc20
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w-g
@w-g
Also noting that this is a prop I would submit in a burn-enabled dao since I think it’s one of the two best things to do with the resources (other being just a linear distribution to nouners based on past voting record) . am not in favor of $nouns but if it happens would rather it not flop or pump/ immediately rug
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w-g
@w-g
Agree if we were in a world with healthy exit incentives but am against 🔥 until we adopt % exit, when it think it becomes likely appropriate/needed. BV-burn is an economic death spiral since it allows for free-riders in the price>bv mode as we’ve discussed before. All (esp arbers) needs to pay the same theta bill
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
