Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/nouns-duna
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Curious to understand what DUNA solves that wouldn’t be solved with: * Remove the veto * Dissolve Nouns foundation * Further protocolize Nouns (e.g Vrbs streaming)
3 replies
1 recast
12 reactions
₿Ξnbodhi ✦⁺ pfp
₿Ξnbodhi ✦⁺
@benbodhi
I think the main thing would be token holder/voter liability.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Voters can be fully anon. Also, more programmatic treasury distribution might solve this (?) https://warpcast.com/lay2000lbs/0x31175fb2
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leighton pfp
Leighton
@lay2000lbs
Not sure anon voting is plausible. Might be better to remove the need to vote. Something like an unstoppable stream that you can direct in real time by staking a noun on an address would be more defensible.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
What’s the issue with anon voting? Steaming like this is currently being worked on for Noun by Vrbs (cc @rocketman): https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/582 https://warpcast.com/rocketman/0x218edf06
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leighton pfp
Leighton
@lay2000lbs
Well presumably you would need to make the ownership of the noun itself anon. Otherwise you still have same liability issue. So that’s what I was thinking would not be feasible
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Leighton pfp
Leighton
@lay2000lbs
The simple thing is: The more Nouns is an autonomous protocol with no governance input the less legal risk there is. The more it looks like a shared bank account with token voting. The more legal risk
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
wylin pfp
wylin
@wylin
exactly. the beauty of the DUNA is that is protects Nouns in the near term given the current facts look more like a shared bank account and gives legal foundation for it to continue moving towards an autonomous protocol in the medium and long term
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Who exactly is it meant to protect? 

 It’s still unclear to me why we need DUNA now. DUNA imposes a KYC requirement on DAO funding, and requires core protocol changes to an arguably much worse minority protection mechanism that also will kill DAO cash flows for 4 years due to auction revenue vesting. Why can’t we continue the current structure until we can further protocolize Nouns? If the Nouns Foundation is concerned about its liability, doesn’t removing the veto and dissolving the foundation solve that? Just trying to get a better understanding of the goals and alternatives, because it seems there are a lot of downsides to DUNA.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
wylin pfp
wylin
@wylin
meant to protect token holders, DAO members the corporate veil of Cayman Foundations DAOs, meaning when they go to court the company is liable not the owners/ employees of the company as individuals, has been pierced in the United States multiple times in the past 2 years what this means is that if, and yes it’s an if but a big one given the consequences, a lawsuit or gov enforcement action happens, individual DAO members can be held liable and pursued. at that point your anonymity is as good as your OpSec vs the discovery process and/or a government agent’s ability to crack it DUNAs, and any form of Non-Profit company structure, also insulate against the tokens = equity argument because there is no beneficial ownership/ profit sharing in Non-Profits. this makes Pro-Rata claims to the treasury effectively illegal though, so a refund mechanism like this is the workaround imo we shouldn’t assume auctions will stay where they are, have said i think the 4 year window is WAY too long
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction