Content
@
https://opensea.io/collection/nouns
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
david
@davidbr
some thoughts on % exit: if every dao spend proportionally reduces the exit value, sounds rational to exit before a large spend and rejoin after. perhaps difficult if holding many nouns, but makes sense if only holding one? assuming the dao has no significant income (like today). wdyt @w-g
4 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Joel Cares
@joel
If Nouns are selling at or below book value I see this happening too. Perhaps it provides some downwards pressure on max proposal size, as larger spends incentivize more arb activity around this. Does make an interesting market game.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Joel Cares
@joel
Ultimately, to fix a lot of things, we need Nouns to have meme value above book value. Then there's some risk to the arb attempt. What if after a huge spend we got more attention, auction prices rose, and they were forced to buy back in at a loss.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
david
@davidbr
this is a risk in the current state. with % exit, nouns are heavily valued based on their exit value. there is no arb on the noun value in that sense. you exit before a spend, and buy back into a dao where your the same ETH buys a larger % of the dao, *regardless of the auction price*
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
w-g
@w-g
a bit misleading since 1 noun is still 1 vote (unless misunderstanding). Building a larger % of capital exposure is only useful for revenue-share, currently not much of a factor when buying and if it ever becomes one then trying to time exit-reentry around props that are producing roi is a dangerous game
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
