0x32d1a53f…d4f5sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#19,871,010·view on Etherscan
negatives first
am seeing a somewhat surprising/encouragingly tepid response overall for the fungible tokens. As i said before, I'm generally unsure about fungibilizing; another way to express my hesitation is: if people are willing to convert to fungible, it means they have appraised the non-fungible value of their Noun at 0. I think this is likely a big structural problem if it takes hold at scale, and skewers a major competitive advantage Nouns has intrinsically as an NFT-based network.
a second concern i have is if we explore % exit further this will complicate the picture for the fungible pool. For example, I think there is potential utility in setting some treasury nouns exit value to 0 and distributing them as pure governance. Clearly this requires some consideration in the context of either proposed erc-20.
These are major strikes against this prop, in addition to reg concerns mentioned by 41 & elsewhere.
Still
the vote IS fungible, and has value, and imo this is definitely something we want to distribute with higher granularity; the committed, zealous engagement of lilnouners, nouncillors etc give me conviction that there are a lot of competent, hungry governors out there that just need an onramp to participate. I think there is major upside to us and Ethereum generally in providing that access. Even without the erc-20, seamlessly functional/fair fractional NFT governance is more than worth the price of admission, and for that reason i end up heavily FOR
this prop is to develop contracts that can be used to drastically improve the condition of all nounish subdao governance, solving a major vulnerability that members of lil nouns, nouncil and sharkdao know all too well. Proportional representation over nouns votes is, imo, easily worth 10x the cost, just by itself.
We also get contracts facilitating flow of props from Nouns into the subdao, also an important unlock. These two features together, along with proposing & cross-chain execution (out of scope here but forthcoming), make subdao governance finally work. Worth 100x the cost, as a package, imo.
We also get granularity of Nouns nfts, ability to burn/recombine into different voting weights, collecting/sharing art as desired (imagine if sharkdao distributed 10000 swim shadys, or if we had 1111 slices of Noun 1111). It unlocks building digital identity at any price point, or simply enjoying generative Noun minting in a generous / open sandbox. While I am currently quite excited about this piece, my conviction is a bit less strong as to implementation than on the governance spec which i feel is probably pretty close to perfect. Definitely open to ideas/discussion there. For example, do we limit how small/large the fractions can be or how many overall (current thinking no), or add a fee switch so the protocol can generate revenue from the open-edition approach to Nouns minting (current thinking no).
On the regulatory side, it seems self-evident that if a Noun is not a security, then neither is a Noun with 0.5 vote instead of 1 vote.
We can table deploying the erc-20 and still get a significant amount of non-contentious functionality out of these new contracts. In this framing, the risk is limited to 14eth and the upside in acquiring the uncorrelated thought energy of N new long-term participants who are currently priced out is, while hard to quantify, probably a >1 multiple of our current market cap.