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
53 reactions
w-g
@w-g
Think I am against allowing people to mint $nouns with nouns. Esp for v1. Not needed for the primary use-case (reward builders) and will increase unproductive speculation . It also makes % exit much more complicated since treasury nouns will be fungible but others will not
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
david
@davidbr
clarifying: 1. do you mean you think minting $nouns should be possible only by the DAO? I'm also slightly leaning that way. 2. I didn't understand the part about the % exit complication. can you explain more?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
w-g
@w-g
1. Yes (shooting myself in foot here as possible large LP fwiw) 2. Imo if we move to % exit is possible (likely?) treasury nouns will initialize @book value at time of change. Newly auctioned nouns would all have different exit values though which adds arbitrage and opacity to claim process
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
david
@davidbr
I understand. not sure regarding likeliness of % exit, maybe prop 528 will shed some light? I agree % exit adds a new dimension of non-fungibility to Nouns, which would make less sense with the current "floor nouns" pool. I imagine owners won't deposit a Noun with higher % exit value.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
