Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
The recent NounSwap treasury swap props have revived the discussion around permissionless swapping (thanks @frog). Curious what the sentiment is around a simple swap contract with a fixed fee going to the treasury? This is similar to what we proposed in NounSwap’s original failed proposal, but based on community feedback, and potentially a shift in sentiment from $nouns wanted to re-engage to see if this is something the DAO would be interested in. The benefit is a new revenue stream for the DAO, and preventing wasting attention and gas of having treasury swap offers going through governance.
3 replies
1 recast
8 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Links below for more context @frog reviving this dicussion: https://warpcast.com/frog/0xa85565bc Recent swap proposals: * https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/571 * https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/566 * https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/541 Original NounSwap proposals: * https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/457 * https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/nounswap-auction-house-a2b6590a6dc916fe317dcab169a18a5b87a5c3d5
1 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I’m personally in favor of a minimal swapper that accomplishes what is already happening with the proposal based swaps but in a permissionless way. I hear the feedback from some about it wanting nouns to be swappable / fungible but the reality is that $nouns already allows for swaps so it feels futile to try to stop it. Might as well introduce a mechanism that doesn’t require the full attention of the dao and introduces a new revenue stream. I’m curious for the communities thoughts on an fair price point for swapping
0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Davin クマ
@davinoyesigye
“Permissionless”
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
