Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Path to making $nouns useful and scalable: 1. Get it audited 2. Exclude $nouns’ Noun balance from totalAdjustedSupply (NounsDAOFork lib upgrade + NounsDAOLogicV4 upgrade to consume new lib) 3. Deposit some treasury Nouns (top N ID’s) 4. LP some of the $nouns, and distribute others as builder rewards Benefits: * $nouns won’t break governance quorum * More LP means less slippage, making it more feasible to use $nouns as a medium of exchange within the Noun ecosystem * Fractional treasury Noun distribution for builders rather then giving full Noun’s, which are mostly not being used (and themselves, hurting quorum) Prop 536 failed largely due to regulatory uncertainty and liability, but DUNA might solve this? Thoughts? cc @noun40 @el4d @davidbr
5 replies
4 recasts
27 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
What ever happened to the ascii nouns prop? Also supportive of the above but worried about fracture from a new token And the proportional voting power of ascii nouns is attractive, feels like a better coin overall Just not sure what the deal is, haven’t heard anything in a minute cc @wylin
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
wylin💎↑ pfp
wylin💎↑
@wylin
the audit didn’t pass when we put it up; can resend the audit prop at anytime, code’s ready to go the governance process is important, kind of the fundamental thing that Nouns is, so no desire to leverage DAO-wide resources for a personal project or just send it anyways when the proposal doesn’t pass i get the space is permissionless but sometimes it’s important to show restraint. the core thesis of Nouns is bootstrapping governance & identity onchain; putting the token out after the prop not passing totally flies in the face of that and would be a bad look. imo the design of $nouns is fundamentally broken and blacklisting the Nouns in its contract doesn’t solve that i understand the sunk costs for a site like NounSwap but all it does is make people bag holders
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
To be clear, NounSwap was not involved in building $nouns. We choose to build on top of it because it enables permissionless swapping. If $ascii gets deployed and has liquidity, we will likely build permissionless swapping on top of that too. Would be cool to see a fragmented Nouns ERC-20 become a medium of exchange in the Nouns ecosystem for example for things like merch, ticket, other projects NFT’s, etc. But, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem, need liquidity in order for this to occur otherwise there is huge slippage (like $nouns), meaning folks are less willing to accept the ERC-20 as they might need to cover their costs in fiat (for IRL businesses at least). Any ERC-20 needs to solve this liquidity issue, and probably the best way is to do this is bootstrapping from the Nouns treasury. I personally think $nouns is a better design than $ascii due to the name, simplicity, and ease of education/understanding (KISS). But, would be cool to see both of them in existence.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
wylin💎↑ pfp
wylin💎↑
@wylin
personally wouldn’t be against a name change. i had minimal involvement with $ascii, knew a prop was coming a provided a bit of feedback but no real involvement. picked up the mantle after learning the code had been finished for weeks but the audit was stalled because $nouns was released imo the wrapping into NFTs and ability to meaningfully participate in governance, as opposed to zero voting, gets to the crux of solving the liquidity issue by giving people a real reason to care and actually buy more, at which point medium of exchange use cases can begin to flourish, plus it is significantly more aligned with the core thesis of Nouns as an experiment in bootstrapping onchain governance & identity
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction