Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
How do we hide our eth from the fork that’s starting
4 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
This is an interesting idea to achieve: https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/stake-1k-in-rounds-32d1a53f6709a03f4b6cf4cb0501204ba188d4f5
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Not necessarily against but seems too ultra bullish on rounds. I’m thinking something that can be reversed, similar to buying alien punk just to temporarily diversify assets
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
醓 pfp
醓
@pip
could send me the eth and ill send it back when this has blown over
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
How much interest
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Agreed. But, of all the existing project to stake into, its probably the best. It sets aside means to fund builders via rounds and is outside of the control of the DAO. Jokes aside, what @pip said is valid, could be expectations of Rounds returning these funds after a fork. It is quire tricky tho, basically what is being asked for is a way to move funds out of the treasury into a holding account, which can somehow be recaptured later. The problem is that this goes against the whole purpose of the fork, majority can move all funds to this holding account and forkers would get nothing. In the case the forkers are not just arbers looking to exit, and are an honest minority who want to continue, they get screwed. Might as well just disable the fork if we are going to move funds into holding to shelter them.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea I mean I’d be down to disable to fork too I think that’s definitely the better option. I dont think honest minority protection is worth it when that’s mostly a hypothetical and what’s not a hypothetical is nouns getting drained by arbers for the 3rd (4th?) time
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Yea, needs more thought, but I might lean towards: * Disabling the fork * Enable proportional exit all the time This will bring Nouns floor to BV, allow people to still exit if they want, and remove these large events of mass exit and extraction via forking. Arbers will always be there, but less impact. If a minority group wants to "fork", they still can still do so by exiting and deploying a new DAO together. I think protecting against the hypothetical is still important for the long term vision of Nouns even if its unlikely or has not happened yet, but think this could be a happy medium.
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Bixbite 👽 pfp
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
Proportional exit imo can only be achieved with a DAO starting from scratch, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a solution that cant be exploited because there are already too many Nouns in circulation with varying auction prices. How do you handle the treasury Nouns given out, what about the Nounders Nouns & secondary Nouns.... sounds like a headache.... V4 - remove the fork, seems like a no brainer to me
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Hmm, idk if it’s that complex. Why not just turn it on? Fork doesn’t care about auction price. Neither do any arbers, from BV perspective it doesn’t matter. Ppl who would be forking anyways can exit at the same price they would get via fork, and auction will immediately go to BV. Don’t think fork should be disable without a way for honest minority to exit.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Bixbite 👽 pfp
Bixbite 👽
@bixbite
Turning it off just turns into a cat and mouse game of putting up proposals to turn it on and off, back and fourth…. There would be 2 ways to exit, secondary sales like traditional NFT projects for melting down to $NOUNS, so it’s not like there are not other options available
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
I am saying don't disable the fork until proportional exits in place. And actually, probs don't even need to disable, leave it there for use by the honest economic minority. If there is proportional exit all the time why would any arber even want to fork when their end goal of a fork is to achieve proportional exit. Secondary and $nouns exits are below BV (not considering liquidity issues), these already exist but likely there are still arbers going to try to fork.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction