Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Does some combination of block # + owner work? Each of these on their own do not work. Block number -> I can swap for each noun in the pool and mint and NDT ahead of a proposal. As long as nobody backruns me I have overextended my voting power. Owner -> I can swap, vote, swap, vote, swap, vote for each noun in the pool. Block number + owner -> I can't swap, vote, swap, vote because the block number check enforces that I must do this ahead of the proposal and I can't mint x NDTs ahead of time because owner check. Keep track of both of these on the NDT (no need to track transfers, just keep state on the NDT for who held the noun at the time the NDT was minted. No need for token wrapper. Downside is this does not preserve stale NDTs, and does not allow someone to receive an NDT and instantly start voting (which could be confusing) Positives are legibility of voting power, easier subdelegation, coolness factor Where am I going wrong here?
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
I don't think this solves still:
1 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Ah okay so I think if I'm understanding the problem is now that as long as you mint all the NDTs to yourself ahead of a proposal and nobody backruns you, can you still have all NDTs and the state of each will have block number ahead of the proposal and owner as yourself. So when I say that you can't swap, vote, swap, vote because block # prevents it, it only prevents it if you try that attack during a proposal, but as long as you've minted before the proposal you are okay. Ok, I'm on the same page I think. Your original cast was a bit hard for me to follow but I'm coming around to why you would need to know when the original noun is transferred in order to null the owner state on the NDT
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Yep exactly! Apologies for that, probably poor communication on my end 😅
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
all good! appreciate the longer explanation here. I'd really love to see this problem solved, I think NDTs are a super fun idea
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Agreed, but I think it requires a wrapper. Unless I am really missing something, I think any other solution will be partial and/or very complex without. Wrapper gives a clean slate for a better and simpler design IMO.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Ya, what are your thoughts on wrapper? The only downside I see is that it's requires opt-in behavior, and doesn't feel as "pure". But the purity argument doesn't really stick for me bc if nouns was upgadable we could just add the transfer hooks and wouldn't need opt-in anymore... so it's still a fine solution.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
The more I think about it, more I think wrapper will be needed. IMO, biggest issue is UX. @davidbr / @el4d, probably already been considered, but thoughts on making the “wrapper” a 1 way upgrade to NounTokenV2, with the long term goal being to move all Nouns and the auction over to it? Short term maybe a crappy transition (but tbh not much worse than bi-directional wrap/unswap), but long term won’t need to continue to support the legacy Token.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction