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.

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:

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

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

Disagree! The DAO went through several rounds of rejecting swaps, but this to spec backdoors. The simple version is so simple we can add 1 non-simple thing to be more in-line with our values. There is no rush. V1 of this design is the highest signal we will have.

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):

I think @noun70 has objections: https://warpcast.com/noun70/0x9bcfa74f

These are all extremely good questions. I think having an instant exit opportunity by way of melting your noun is bad for the DAO. 

One good thing is you can’t exit for proportional amount of treasury, only what others are willing to pay via pool, which is probably less than % of treasury