Spencer Perkins on Warpcast

Content pfp

https://opensea.io/collection/nouns

0 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

Elad pfp

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

21 replies

7 recasts

49 reactions

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

Thanks for sharing, very excited for this! A few questions (in thread):

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

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 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

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?

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

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?

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Noun 40 pfp

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

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

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

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Noun 40 pfp

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

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

IIUC, your argument is that $nouns would make Nouns less fungible than NounSwap because only a portion of Nouns are moved to $nouns. My point is that in both cases the DAO would control the number of Nouns that are exposed, so there is not much of a differentiation here.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Noun 40 pfp

i understand your point. what i’m saying is that practically i think most ppl imagined excluding a minority position of treasury nouns in the nounswap’s case since making then available for swapping / bidding was the point. given that is not the point for $nouns i imagine less than 10% of treasury being deposited

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Noun 40 pfp

in the $nouns case and that is a meaningful difference. like in the nounswap case maybe even if we excluded at lot we would have prob let 50% swappable? 10% vs 50% is just a different thing imo

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Spencer Perkins pfp

Spencer Perkins

@spencerperkins.eth

NounSwap would have also started small at let the DAO change as needed. I imagine both $nouns and NounSwap would have converged on a similar number of Nouns exposed. $nouns spec includes swaps, so I really don't consider this much different https://github.com/verbsteam/specs/blob/main/nouns-fungible-token-spec.md#swap

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Noun 40 pfp

i’m sorry but i disagree that number of treasury nouns exposed would have converged. i re-read my vwr and i suggested we started with “most recent 200 IDs”. that’s starting with more than 30% of treasury nouns exposed and potentially scaling if things went well. $nouns i don’t think we’d go above 50 nouns

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction