memoscan

0x3380…694c

All memos sent from and to 0x3380…694c.
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#21,001,901·0xd4f00591…caac71
I am fundamentally against Nouns DUNA. The grassroots and Ethereum alignment of Nouns was a big factor in why I became involved in the DAO, and why I think Nouns is one of the coolest projects on the internet. With the shift to DUNA, I feel this is being lost. I would encourage everyone to read the values section of [ethereum.org](https://ethereum.org), and ask yourself if Nouns DUNA is a step in the right direction towards alignment. Unfortunately, when I do this the answer is NO on all fronts: - Equal Access: DUNA is likely to impose geographical restrictions on grantees (ex. sanctioned countries) and will restrict bidders. - Open to all: DUNA requires grantees to KYC, a permissioned process. - Decentralized: DUNA centralizes operations to the USA and further consolidates veto control (ex. Chief Compliance Officer). - Censorship Resistant: DUNA had the final say and the power to censor any proposal with the Veto, which will likely be done anytime a proposal is deemed non-compliant with the DUNA. - Privacy Oriented: DUNA requires grantees to KYC, eroding privacy. Additionally, I’m confused as to why the proposed auction revenue vesting is being framed as minority protection. True minority protection should allow ANYONE who is fundamentally misaligned with the direction of the majority to exit. The proposed system only offers temporary protection to new members, which diminishes over time. Nouns DUNA would likely be better off without, and note that DUNA and minority protection are distinct issue. There are alternative ways to implement real minority protection without creating arbitrage opportunities, which I believe is a more productive use of protocol dev resources. Finally, the lack of transparency from the Nouns Foundation, especially regarding tax liability, is deeply concerning. Nouns DAO has generated over $135M in revenue and, to my knowledge, has never paid taxes. It seems likely that the DAO treasury will be drained to cover the tax liability, leaving Nouns DUNA to try to navigate without a treasury. I will be disappointed if this proposal passes. I believe that non-DUNA Nouns has the potential for a more exciting, impactful, innovative, and unstoppable future. Whatever the outcome, at least it’ll be entertaining 🍿.
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#20,471,624·0xae37a285…addfbd
the-graph-as-the-official-data-provider-for-nounsThe Nouns subgraph is used by many apps, and has ~25M queries per month. The benefit of subgraphs is that they are highly scalable, work out of the box, and are public goods. A dev building in Nouns can get up and running with Nouns data for free in minutes without needing to worry about indexing. Comparing this to the prop candidate from Goldsky: * The Graph (this candidate): $36k USD for 3 years of unlimited queries + 1 Noun * Goldsky (Open, unrestricted access to Nouns and Lil Nouns data): ~$80k USD for 2 years of unlimited queries + 1 Noun Competing proposals is good for the DAO! In fact, having both is not a bad thing, it means apps can have redundant fallbacks if the same subgraph is deployed both places (NounSwap does this now using The Graph decentralized network deployment and falling back to Goldsky if this were to fail). Teams can still decide what indexing solution they want to use, there is no “lock in”. They just have the option to use The Graphs decentralized subgraph deployment for free. But, they are more than welcome to deploy the subgraph wherever they like (same code can be deployed on any hosting service), or build their own solution. We have been using ponder for some of the data on NounSwap.wtf to get application specific data that doesn’t exist in the subgraph (love the DX). But, we are the only application using our ponder app, and have no plans to make it open at this time. Every team shouldn’t need to build and host their own ponder apps, especially at the beginning of a product. Agree “Official data partner of Nouns” is good branding for The Graph. But, feel this is mutually beneficial. While we would still be paying, there are other benefits here like free signal, subgraph and substream developer support, and guaranteed unlimited queries.
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#19,278,231·0x1bdfe28a…306d2b
nounswap-auction-houseBased on community feedback we receive here, in Warpcast, and in private messages, we have decided not to move forward with NounSwap. We appreciate everyone who took the time to provide feedback, and we look forward to finding other ways to contribute to Nouns in the future.
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#19,214,062·0x02f29570…8c543b
nounswap-auction-houseccarella.eth, We appreciate your support! --- 0x32d1, Thanks for your feedback! For your comment about auction collateralization, the ETH collatarilzation and slashing fee prevents running up the auction without consequences (as you mention in your amendment). But, thinking about this more, maybe the Nouns treasury and the person who aborted the auction should split this slashing fee (so the DAO still gets a piece). You've highlighted a crucial aspect about ensuring fairness, particularly concerning the perceived value difference among bid Nouns. A Noun’s value is inherently subjective, and the swap auction system is designed to empower bidders to independently determine the worth of a swap, embodying the principle that value is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, when a bid Noun is swapped and if it becomes eligible for auction again, the market will subsequently price the Noun, with any value difference accruing to the DAO, not the original holder. The nested auction concept you proposed is compelling, offering an additional mechanism for the market to price the bid Nouns, but it introduces complexity. In this version, our aim is to maintain simplicity, however, we're definitely open to exploring something like this in a future version guided by community feedback.
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#19,124,837·0x72b823f6…e5b2e9
nounswap-auction-houseThanks for reading, and we really appreciate this feedback! We have considered “locking” the bid Noun. You are right that this will prevent settlement failure, but there are a few drawbacks: - Bids would be more expensive, since it is less gas efficient. Each bid would need to move the bid Noun into NounSwap, and return the previous bid Noun. - The NounSwap contract would needs to “escrow” the bid Noun, which might make potential bidders hesitant. - Bidders would not be able to participate in governance. If it is something the community feels strongly about, we are open to changing it (which goes for mostly everything in the proposal). In terms of dev royalty configurability, you make a great point. We want the royalty to be fair for the DAO, while also allowing Paperclip Labs to maintain NounSwap indefinitely without needing additional fundings. The reason we are proposing configurability is because it would allow flexibility for adjustment based on what the community feels is fair, which might not be known until NounSwap is in the wild. But, we are open to working with the community and agreeing upon a fixed value beforehand if that is preferred. Please don’t hesitate to provide additional feedback or thought. Also, we would love to hear more folks input on these topics!
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#18,781,738·0x3ca26f74…178faa
We appreciate everyone who voted and provided feedback throughout this process. While a defeated prop is never the outcome anyone hopes for, it was a great learning experience for our team. To all those who came out and voted, thank you. The feedback we received is crucial in helping us navigate the way forward. As it stands now there are a few wallets who have not yet provided any feedback with significant voting influence. We respectfully ask any delegates associated with these wallets to share their feedback on the project and proposal with us, either on-chain or through a private channel. Your feedback will be invaluable to help us determine a path forward for NounSwap. Despite the setback, the experience of developing the NounSwap MVP was enjoyable, and we remain optimistic about finding a way forward. We are committed to collaborating with the community to explore alternative paths that align with everyone's interests. Thank you for your ongoing support.
0x3380a055…694csent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#18,773,101·0x9d1e946d…eb3bff
Hey again, For anyone wanting more context, I spoke about this prop on The Noun Square x Agora X/Twitter spaces. Check it out here (6:15 - 22:05): [https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1vAxRvjVYgaxl?s=20](https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1vAxRvjVYgaxl?s=20) Thank you to everyone who has voted so far, we really appreciate your support and feedback. --- I would like to address a few of the comments from the against votes below. ### To krel.eth: [NounSwap.wtf](http://NounSwap.wtf) has over 470 unique visitors, and 1600 page views. We have gotten a ton of positive feedback on X/Twitter and Farcaster, and there seems to be a large appetite from the community for a swapping mechanism. As such, I would argue there is product market fit for a swapping mechanism, and we are trying to achieve that by having this proposal address all the feedback thus far. Even tho the initial 2 props failed, I would say that the MVP is not a failure, rather a stepping stone to bringing NounSwap to fruition. ### To nounounounoun.eth: We understand your general opposition to a swapping mechanism. But, people effectively swap Nouns everyday by selling and buying, or via OTC swap, trying to get their forever Noun. In fact, I suspect many of the active members in the Noun’s community have swapped in some way shape or form. NounSwap will facilitate this process, making it easier, more accessible, and remove the friction, while also earning revenue for the DAO. With respect to the redemption token pushback, Noun Scout, and governance proposals are frequently giving away Nouns. Why not give the recipient the ability to pick the Noun that best resonates with them rather than picking for them? The DAO will have full control over these tokens and how they are distributed. With respect to subjective value. We were thinking that the group of Nouns excluded from permissionless swaps would be lower N, and also specific ID’s. These parameters will all be DAO settable. For Nouns in the exclusion group, a governance proposal with personal message and custom fee can be attempted for a swap (v1 mechanism). As such, for the excluded group, we don’t need to try to create a ranking system, if they are desired they will be evaluated on a case by case via a governance proposal. I would still argue that the nouns which can be permissionlessly swapped for are non-fungable. The swappers decision to exchange their Noun, coupled with the added fee reflects a subjective valuation, they value the treasury Noun they want to obtain more than the Noun they own. In terms of the funding ask, we think our overall proposal is quite fair for the design, and engineering efforts required. I am seeing a general tread of the Nouns community based on recent successful proposals of valuing core development work less than that of art or community based projects. If this is truly the case, developers looking to forward the Noun’s protocol are going to be hesitant to contribute. ### To thebower.eth We totally understand the proposal spam, and voter fatigue. We are proposing to implement v1 fully as the prop based solution as it will be leveraged as part of the v2 implementation for Nouns which are excluded for permissionless swaps. For anyone really itching to swap before v2 is released, they can use this mechanism with a personal messages, and a fee included in the props. v2 should significantly alleviate the issue with the introduction of permissionless swaps. In terms of retro funding, unfortunately we are not in a position to work for 3 months for free, and hope that the community will retro fund this entire project. Generally, we try to avoid retro funding, and believe that builders should be paid at least based on milestones for the work they do that brings value to the community. In terms of funding ask, we think our proposal is quite fair, refer to my last comment to nounounounoun.eth. In terms of usage so far see my comment to krel.eth. ### To screenshotessays.eth: The initial props were from the MVP, and we acknowledge it was not perfect, and to be quite honest we were not fully expecting the first props to pass. V1 implementation outlined in this proposal is based on all the feedback we got from those initial swap props + Twitter/X + Farcaster. The foundation we built so far will be used for v1, and v2 parts of this project. In terms of subjectivity and value of Nouns, see my comments to nounounounoun.eth. ### noun12.eth The end goal here is to move to a permissionless implementation (v2), that won’t need a governance proposal, and votes. Please read NounSwap v2 section of this proposal. Furthermore, all swap fees will be going to the DAO treasury, and NounSwap allows Noun owners to get the Noun that resonates with them most, increasing the overall satisfaction within the Noun community. So, I don’t follow how exactly this is subtracting value from the DAO.
0x3380a055…694csent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#18,764,986·0x9b46f162…384147
Earlier this week, we launched the MVP version of NounSwap. It allows any Noun holders to create a prop to swap their Noun for a Noun from the treasury. Overall we received a lot of positive and constructive feedback. We've created this proposal to address the feedback and further enhance the NounSwap experience to drive the Nouns project forward. Here's what we plan to do: We’re Bringing All Nouns Home ❤️. This proposal will return the 266 Nouns currently sitting in escrow back to the Nouns treasury. Part 1: Improve the current version of NounSwap (v1): Prop personalization: We're going to introduce the ability for proposers to share their personal motivations behind why they want to swap their Noun, accompanied by images of the Nouns involved for a richer narrative. Prop fee: We will be adding an optional fee mechanism to help proposers “convince” the DAO to accept their swap. If the proposal passes, the fee will be sent to the Nouns treasury allowing the DAO to directly benefit from successful swaps. Part 2: Permissionless Swaps (v2) We heard that the community felt that creating a proposal for every swap could lead to prop spam/voter fatigue. So, we will be building permissionless swaps with governance-configurable parameters which include: A fee switch: Governance can decide how much of a fee a swapper will need to pay. This will provide an additional revenue mechanism for the DAO. Swap Exclusion: Governance will be able to determine which nouns will and will not be available for permissionless swaps. Nouns which cannot be swapped permissionlessly can still be obtained via a successful swap prop via the NounSwap v1 mechanism. Part 3: Redemption Tokens We want to improve the way the community distributes Nouns with a redemption token. Instead of the DAO giving out a specific Noun, they can give a redemption token, which can be redeemed for the Noun that truly resonates with the recipient. Imagine a vending-machine-like experience. Benefits of NounSwap: - 🔄 Evolving Tastes: People change, and so do preferences. NounSwap ensures your Noun aligns with your evolving style. - 🌍 Community Engagement: More swaps mean increased interaction, strengthening the bonds within the Nouns community. - 🚀 Overcoming FOMO and decision paralysis: New members need not hastily settle for a Noun from the auction, or wait months for their preferred Noun. NounSwap allows them to discover the perfect fit at their own pace. - 🌐 Funds for DAO Treasury: Every swap will contribute a fee to the Noun treasury, fostering a sustainable and thriving Nouns ecosystem. We believe, NounSwap is a win-win scenario for everyone. Noun holders have the opportunity to discover their 'forever Noun', enhancing overall satisfaction within the Noun ecosystem. Simultaneously, the treasury gains a new revenue stream, ensuring sustained growth and prosperity for the community. A final comment on fungibility: NounSwap's introduction of a swap fee ensures that Nouns remain distinctly non-fungible. The swapper's decision to exchange their Noun, coupled with the added fee, reflects a subjective valuation, emphasizing the individuality of each Noun. The voluntary nature of the process reinforces personal preferences, further distinguishing Nouns. We hope to work closely with the Nouns community to ensure NounSwap will be highly valuable to the Nouns ecosystem. Please don't hesitate to leave feedback here, or reach out: - X/Twitter: @PaperclipLabs - Farcaster: @spencerp