0x32d1a53f…d4f5sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#19,991,584·view on Etherscan
tldr; backwards step for decentralization unless i keep throwing money away
do nouners generally subscribe to a code-is-law ethos? can client incentives be used any way the protocol allows? if so, then this HAS to be defeated, since the 90 eth is a trivial honeypot for large coordinated voter blocks.
If not, maybe someone can take a crack at outlining the parameters for appropriate use of the protocol, what may qualify as abuse and what recourse Nouns may have/exercise if those bounds are violated.
Is it inappropriate for client NFT holders to sell their asset? If they do, what are the consequences? Is there an amount of market share we don't want any one client ID to capture? if so, why isnt this protocolized? if not, how does that encourage decentralization/redundancy of infrastructure?
Nouns cannot succeed if token holders must continually resist the near term appeal of claiming these airdrops in a value extractive way. Its a problem the L1 faces as well, so I'm not shaming anyone, but we need to push harder.
its time to start demanding higher durability from the protocol. We should aim to be an exemplar of what progress in crypto governance can look like, not a poster child for its deficiencies. This is a step in the wrong direction since it redoubles the DAO's dependency on well-capitalized benefactors propping thing up/ deferring the catastrophes that would unfold on a level playing field.
True incentive compatibility may be unattainable but I'm confident this is in the wrong universe.
One answer is to (reject this and) restrict the vote/auction incentives to 1 per unique nounish entity (and to establish the protocol for identifying these entities) and stop incentivizing proposing (or set anti-spam to be governed by its own dynamic quorum parameters). Take a deposit for proposing and reward successful props. Decentralize the veto.
Is really is necessary for these things to be in place (or other mechanisms reproduces their effects) for this idea, or nouns generally, to work. going backwards like this (deploy wrong thing, get rekt, iterate) is wasteful, slow, and ultimately demoralizing.
I continue to plead with Nouners to begin to acknowledge these issues and to stop falling into the same traps as much of the rest of the space. trivially gameable mechanisms are not a good look.
if people disagree this is trivially gameable it would imply there is seen to be some role of the foundation or other off-chain, possibly litigious mechanisms for enforcing boundaries. am interested to hear how that might work since i've also explored these and they haven't seemed to be very effective...