Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
Struggling to make sense of the vote outcome for 'fork at 10% threshold' prop. Shortcutting to my conclusion here but it seems that logically one person (or a consortium) holds an awful lot of nouns, ballpark of 300. And that person is not (primarily) motivated to arb. Other possibilities?
4 replies
0 recast
10 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Perhaps incentives from potential tax offsets via DUNA are larger than those from exit, and this allows them to keep the Nouns. Whoever is holding these Nouns has certainly lost a lot of $.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
krel
@krel
somewhat likely conclusion that: - the person cares more about nouns than the money - its peanuts anyway (eth wealthy)
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Agree with the second point, exit is likely peanuts at least compared to their principal. Not sure the first point needs to be true. Could have just gotten too deep in their position, and now they are searching for a way to minimize their losses while maintaining control.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
krel
@krel
doesnt seem all that likely tho
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Why not? Could be purely financially motivated. Selling to claim capital losses likely provides less favorable tax benefits than keeping the Nouns and claiming charitable donations (and they get to keep their control over the treasury). *not a tax professional
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
wylin💎↑
@wylin
want to see you all exit fairly, and had there been any 1:1 dialogue with Wag, there wouldn’t be a need to operate on assumptions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
