0x1aa55a5f…bdacsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,931,102·view on Etherscan
@0x073f...2e63
Thanks bix for the vwr. I personally agree with everything but unfortunately it doesn’t really matter now.
Just a clarification about the “because DotNouns thought the treasury nouns were the ones that were being arbed for NOGS, but those were the NounSwap Nouns being arbed”.
Of course I knew that most of the arbs were on the nounswap nouns, but the concept of Swap created a fallacy in the reward system because anyone could have proposed to the dao new swaps just to extract the nogs from those NFTs. That’s why I decided that making them an asset for the treasury would have been much more effective for everyone.
Thanks again.
>
>
> I would support a version of this proposal, but not in it's current form..... heres my reasoning:
>
> As is, this proposal is a 'let them cook' prop with no definitive deliverables and that is a concern to me. If I were Maty and doing proposal tracking what would we say are the KPI's for this prop? What are the deliverables? What would need to be done to consider this proposal a success? The prop says its for a discretionary budget but I'd like to see definitive deliverables mapped out a bit more.
>
> I also think the $NOGS could be distributed in a more meaningful way vs just flooring them all and losing $20k value in slippage. Theres no reason why the $NOGS themselves can not be distributed to the artists or team members who need them for the specific listed items and they are sold as needed with smaller slippage.
>
> Finally, the $NOGS that are in the treasury right now are technically the $NOGS that were embed into each of the treasury nouns but removed because DotNouns thought the treasury nouns were the ones that were being arbed for NOGS, but those were the NounSwap Nouns being arbed.... there have been talks in the past about creating a way for people to purchase Nouns directly from the treasury & it would be a value add to have that purchase include a bonus of tokens (that technically already belong to those Nouns)
>
> I am by no means co-signing on the previous actions of the NNS team, selling the LP fees that belonged to the PartyDAO without a proper proposal is wrong, no excuse.... but NNS & $NOGS have a deep history within Nouns and I feel like there are ways to turn this situation into a positive vs making rash decisions. I think it's best we pump the breaks and come to a solution as a community.
>