Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Elad
@el4d
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
54 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Thanks for sharing, very excited for this! A few questions (in thread):
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
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
david
@davidbr
Changing adjustedTotalSupply by the number of Nouns in the $nouns contract opens an attack surface of allowing anyone to modify this value by depositing Nouns into the contract. e.g. One can deposit 50 Nouns into the contract, lowering adjustedTotalSupply, which lowers fork & quorum thresholds
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Depositing Nouns would still weaken an attackers power relative to using them to carry out their action. Your proposed approach is more conservative ✅. But, it will still impact governance, and in the extreme case could completely stall it until $nouns are redeemed. Allowing $nouns holders to vote would fix this.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
