0xbe14b995…57e6sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#24,348,690·view on Etherscan
I agree with some of the comments here for several reasons. I believe in the DAO being open to anyone who can participate in the auction. Raising the cost of entry artificially feels exclusionary. The market should continue to dictate the value of membership. If necessary, I would vote for a more calculated approach like what Gramajo has described.
+1
> This feels like an attack on Nouns governance in an attempt to preserve Breakeven Movement's average buy-in by preventing others from joining and diluting their power at a lower cost.
+1
> Assuming that a floor is allowed, legally. I am not necessarily against a floor (check Nouncil) but 3ETH feels misaligned. What is the model for getting this number. We should have done last 6 months, media value or something along those lines to get a true sense of a floor.
+1
> BV is irrelevant in a world where Nouns is a DUNA and forking is therefore illegal as a form of profit distribution to members
>
> to pipe's point, governance dilution is the design of the protocol. it's fairly natural for the auction price to fall over time as each token is less influential over outcomes. that's what you're buying after all: a vote + membership.
>
> it's not clear what the goal here is; it seems unlikely any real positives come from attempting to fight market forces + the protocol's design by setting a BV reserve price