nouns-duna

Nouns

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 👇

can someone hit me with a concrete example of a situation in which a token holder would be held liable in a way that would be damaging? 

imo the only potential appeal of duna is if there is a real, tangible risk to owning a noun because of the threat of legal liability. 

but as someone with basically no law experience I don't know what types of situations might exist where token holders could be held liable.

if there are none, or if the likelihood of these situations are extremely small, then I don't think it's worth taking on the downsides of DUNA, and the pros feel more like fantasyland whatifs

still a fair amount of legalese but a decent overview of the border happenings impacting the decision:

Crypto, nouns, malleable software, interfaces, running. // working on @agora // https://0xmcg.com // /the-pond

still a fair amount of legalese but a decent overview of the border happenings impacting the decision:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/digital-assets-daos-new-theories-liability-2024-06-10/

accelerating agritech. empowering communities. ending hunger.
Founder: theCityFarmers.org

| sovereign | post-rich | 🇺🇸/acc | remilio

the Ooki thing is why i’m bearish the Nouns Pure fork or whatever the idea was called

possible in theory, tricky in practice