0x32d1a53f…d4f5sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#19,843,426·view on Etherscan
hi sam. this token has significant additional features that solve many of the issues that have plagued subdaos and fractional nft ownership in this space for years. it's an art collecting and vote token. the additional features will require a significant reworking of $nouns architecture, where this token is built from the ground up with fair governance (proportional representation) in mind.
Also, selling $nouns as designed is likely to be a violation of current prevailing SEC interpretation of securities law. It isn't art, it isn't equal (or any) agency in building a decentralized protocol. This token unlocks both of those things and imo exposes the dao & potential market makers (dao members) to significantly less legal and ethical dysphoria.
I'm the largest potential liquidity source currently for one or both of these, until a market making firm comes around asking for a bunch of treasury nouns at a discount. My personal feeling is the risk is far too great to LP $nouns, and doesn't feel good to contemplate standing in court defending something that i happen to agree is structurally exploitative. Remember the only way to buy these tokens is from rent-seekers.
This token is a completely different thing- it may still attract scrutiny, but its a good-faith effort to provide a complete Noun ownership experience and offers something vastly better than the status quo of what is available in the space wrt fractionalized NFT governance. I would be proud to defend it if it ever came to that.
if $nouns wants to adopt the spec, amazing. My current understanding is they prefer to speed-run the existing version; the consequences are that we will, in the meantime, squarely have (possibly thousands) of second-class citizens in Nouns and expose sellers to downstream regulatory risks. Why go down that road? this is presented as an opportunity to avoid some of that trauma while still running the fungible token experiment.