Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
krel
@krel
Also curious about this > One initial though: is the curve fixed when ageDiff low? Can't you just keep swapping down (e.g. 999 -> 989 -> 980) to avoid the premium? cc @three9s.eth @papercliplabs.eth
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
It’s only fixed when the age difference is negative (you are swapping from lower to higher ID). So, swapping 999 -> 989 -> 980 would cost more than swapping from 999 -> 980 directly actually (since you pay the base on ever swap). If the base fee was 0, cost would be the same as going direct. I.e there is no way to avoid the premium by changing swap sequence. Resharing the curve from the spec for reference (note the x-axis):
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
@krel saw you voted against with: “Not yet convinced this is a good design”. We have explored many iterations, and took into account all the feedback across ~10 props with VWRs. Swapping is a divisive topic, and even tho it seems majority is for swapping, there is not alignment on how this should be realized (which is why this prop will likely fail, and permissionless treasury swapping will likely never be realized). We put a lot of thought into this design: * making sure it doesn’t impact existing governance (totalAdjustedSupply and protect against malicious actors with the timelock) * ability for DAO to select what Nouns are available for swap (subset approval vs approve all) * settable price curve, it’s possible for the DAO to make swaps free, fixed price, or account for low ID thesis (and close the slope to account for this) * optimized for simplicity, avoided adding price auctions as very skeptical there will be swap auction demand Curious which parts of the design you feel are not good?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cole Perkins
@coleperkins
TLDR any DAO that implements the contract can create their own curve
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
