Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

Ben pfp

The new lower fork prop (candidate )must be from a concerned citizen, valid arguments but why hide? At best you can use ownership and participation to help convince the need. At worst, you're left to roll with the 30%

2 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp

Michael Gingras (lilfrog)

0 fork threshold is dumb idea bc it’s an immediate arb opportunity

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

* 0 threshold => rage quit * Auction price will jump to book value * Treasury will be drained N %, where N is % Nouners leaving From DAO perspective, better off to spend the treasury and bring book value down to auction prices first Do understand the sentiment behind the candidate tho. Minority holders shouldn’t be forced into DUNA if they don’t want. Tricky, tricky

4 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp

Michael Gingras (lilfrog)

Spend the treasury to bring auction prices down is what the burn aimed to do. It never got full buy in though, it’s a cool idea but in my opinion it’s not the best way to run an org to be forced to spend money. It’s better to save and then spend when the best ideas come around and you have the best opportunity to deploy capital. If we were forced into a situation where RQ was turned out to let non duna fans out, sure, I’d rather spend some money on props than let folks get away with the easiest arb ever. But since turning on this RQ is a choice, it’s not a choice I’m a fan of based on what I know now.

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

I think your main argument is against the fork in general tho. If 30% want to leave, same thing happened with a threshold of 0% or 30%. https://warpcast.com/spencerperkins.eth/0xc48b3730

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp

Michael Gingras (lilfrog)

Yes I think the fork is an unnecessary overreaction that has caused way more harm than any good it’s ever done. Both in terms of lost treasury but also culture and turning folks away from nouns (I have had conversation with folks who become entirely less interested in nouns as a result of the experiment effectively being refundable) My opinions on the fork aside though — I’m not seeing how it’s the same? If 30% threshold, you need hundreds of participants. If 0, you have rage quit. Anyone can just leave and get their money back.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

IMO, fork is an interesting mechanism, and think some form of minority protection is good design long term (but not sure it’s slow vest and reimbursement). On the flip side of the people you mentioned, there are likely folks who are more interested because of the fork. Myself being one of them mostly because I’m for minority protection, and interesting governance experiments. My claim is that IF 30% wanted to leave, a threshold of 0% or 30% doesn’t matter, it results in the same DAO drain. I.e lowering threshold means better minority protection (smaller minority can leave). The difference is what happens to auction prices during the period of a 0% threshold: https://warpcast.com/spencerperkins.eth/0x55d48720

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp

Michael Gingras (lilfrog)

Gotcha gotcha, I missed the part about if 30% want to leave it’s the same. My hunch is that 30% don’t want to leave or we’d have seen it already, maybe there are that many non duna folks though I agree about enjoying nouns for gov experiments but think there are more interesting coordination experiments to run that are especially more effective when you have more treasury and higher stakes. Retreating to minority protection (especially when the minority didn’t even attempt to continue on as the minority??? 100% just refunders + arbs) seems like it throws in the towel too early for trying to coordinate in other ways

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

I get your point that the fork hasn't YET been used as designed for minority protection. But, that doesn’t mean it won’t be. The proposed DUNA changes are significant and likely controversial (and ironically, propose to remove the fork). This might be one the best use case for the fork so far, potentially leading to the continuation of an independent non-DUNA Nouns DAO. The real question is how large a minority must be to deserve to be protected (fork threshold). Having a large fork threshold has caused the divergence between auction prices and book value, and a perceived arbitrage opportunity + arbitrage narrative. If the threshold was 0 (or we just allowed rage quit), auction prices would immediately jump to book value, and there would no longer be perceived arbitrage.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp

Michael Gingras (lilfrog)

I’d take a bet that if duna happens it will be the canonical nouns “fork” and anyone who leaves will likely end up forking for refund

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

Maybe so, still better than forcing the minority into something against their values IMO. IIUC, your argument is still: fork is bad, and minority protection is not worth the tradeoffs (irrespective of what the fork threshold is).

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩 pfp

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩

Stand by my point — the narrative that the fork was minority protection is BS. As I said MANY MANY MANY times during the fork discussion back in the day, there’s a veto for a reason. That’s the only true protection.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

Veto is not minority protection, it’s controlled by one of the largest voting groups, and in this case, the group that is pushing the proposal which could trigger a fork…

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩 pfp

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩

No but it is a way that the minority interests can be protected if the veto is with a trusted party. The fork was the opposite of minority protection thus far.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

Minority protection must be trustless. Relying on a “trusted party” to protect minority interests doesn't work—no one can guarantee they'll always act in the minority's favor. Blockchain’s ability to remove trusted intermediaries solves this risk.

3 replies

0 recast

3 reactions