Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Elad
@el4d
gm, @davidbr and I are working on the $nouns token, backed by Nouns. 1M $nouns <-> 1 Noun NFT. you're invited to read this short spec doc and reply with your feedback. thanks! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uz4l8bAPaA2_gsUVZsZo_1dAmggAiYIn5sYba1IK10Q/edit?usp=sharing
21 replies
7 recasts
54 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Thanks for sharing, very excited for this! A few questions (in thread):
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
1. For adjusted total supply, curious why not adjust by the number of Nouns held by the $nouns contract rather than the equivalent portion held by the treasury? The proposed method will make it harder for props to pass if a large number of Nouns are in the $nouns contract.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
2. While $nouns will be great to help bring people into Nouns, it also add an easy exit route for Noun owners (easier than a fork, or selling). Will there be a supply cap on $nouns or any kind of deposit rate limit to try to prevent a mass exit event?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
3. Curious about community sentiment on fungibility. NounSwap was rejected in a large part because it “made Nouns fungible”. $nouns does this to to an extreme, and NounSwap could be built directly on-top of $nouns. Is there support for $nouns from folks whom opposed NounSwap due to fungibility concerns?
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Noun 40
@noun40
shared a bit here. i think it's a misnomer that $nouns makes all treasury nouns fungible. https://warpcast.com/noun40/0x99574a92
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
I see where you are coming from. But, in both iterations of NounSwap we proposed a mechanism to limit the number of treasury Nouns permitted to be swapped via excluding ID's below a threshold, effectively achieving the same thing. IMO, this is a better approach: https://warpcast.com/spencerperkins.eth/0xe6238761
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Noun 40
@noun40
yeah but i think in the context of nounswap props given the goal was to make treasury nouns available for swapping / bidding i think most would have imagined a larger portion being available (it’s more “excluding” rather than “including” in that case of $nouns) so don’t think quite the same practically
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
