Builder

GM Builders! There was a suggestion to change the proposal threshold back to 1 (currently 2 needed). Drop comments here as well with any feedback. 

I’ll also add it to the agenda for Thursday’s DAO meeting. 

cc: @kmacb.eth

Ethereum builder & people connector. @juicebox revnet.eth.sucks defifa.net d33m.com

GM Builders! There was a suggestion to change the proposal threshold back to 1 (currently 2 needed). Drop comments here as well with any feedback. 

I’ll also add it to the agenda for Thursday’s DAO meeting. 

cc: @kmacb.eth 

https://discord.com/channels/1039595167910477936/1178772723133067334

building /gmfarcaster network |
blockchain ENT prof |  ⌐◧-◧ Nouncillor, Nouner, BuilderDAO community resident /builder |

https://www.gmfarcaster.com/ 

I think it’s useful to discuss admin settings every once in a while — good discussion to have. 

I do disagree re: veto. I think one should always exist as a fail safe. Seen too many DAOs get attacked to think otherwise. Who holds it will change in time.

In regards to demand — it comes in waves and does not appear impact by admin factors. Since it’s a public goods DAO, roi is unlikely so that limits the market. 

Those who do buy on auction often have a prop in mind and/or want to show support for the project. Most come via other DAOs (Nouns, FWB, Purple etc).

No need to exert too much energy on this. My coming in assumptions:
1- DAO is not currently sustainable
2- DAO revenues might benefit from more decentralized.

L2 fees should help with aspects of #1.
The veto, 15% allocations, & holder distribution all impact token demand. The 2 token min to propose isn't a higher prio

@kmacb.eth the convo back in june was 1 token until 400 tokens but a prop did not go up in time