Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction

Noun 40 pfp
Noun 40
@noun40
discourse around DUNA seems to be focused around the downsides (added KYC requirement to grantees) imo DUNA's massive upsides are: - reducing tax risk - providing limited legal liability to members while still allowing: - members to remain anonymous (privacy) - explicit voting rights to members if there are other avenues to achieve the above without any compromises then that would be wonderful, but as far as i know at the moment DUNA is unique in offering the above properties with limited compromises (paying taxes in the US, KYC req for grantees). more thoughts continued 👇
7 replies
43 recasts
126 reactions

three9s pfp
three9s
@three9s.eth
Could you go more into detail about the "massive upsides"? Personally I've never faced either of those challenges mentioned.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions

Noun 40 pfp
Noun 40
@noun40
has the added replies been helpful? https://warpcast.com/noun40/0x9b208236
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

three9s pfp
three9s
@three9s.eth
Yes, thanks for the additional context. Though overall, my feeling it still that this is not worth it. Every token voting DAO has these potential problems - and there has not been a single case (that I am aware of) where an individual DAO member has had legal repercussions due to a proposal they voted for.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions

three9s pfp
three9s
@three9s.eth
DUNA seems like an unnecessary precaution. I just don't see how it's worth giving up a core property like KYC; a property important enough where there is a very real possibility of it triggering a fork.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions