0xae65e700…46c0sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#20,572,606·view on Etherscan
this aversion to treasury swap thing is odd to me. we do recognize that they get almost unanimous yes votes and have gone through seven times. so it facilitated seven actions that the dao explicitly voted saying yes that would be a good thing for the dao. i’m consistently a fan of allowing the later ID half of the treasury nouns to be permissionlessly swapped bc i can’t think of a situation i would vote against someone getting a noun they like more. i don’t buy the argument that this is leading to less auction revenue for the dao. yeah maybe on some preferred heads ppl feel there’s less competition? (not sure if that’s really right or we’re just low on auction demand rn). but then what about all the days there is more auction demand for a less in demand head noun bc they think they could ask for a swap? it would be raising auction prices for the average day and make competition more stable and steady. not clear to me that that leads to less overall auction revenue (my guess is more). my hope if that we just make the later half of the treasury nouns permossionlessly swappable to reduce the voting fatigue. making it easier for ppl to get their favorite noun heads is a good thing imo.
outside of all that i think the paperlabs team has been contributing consistently at a high caliber against a lot of setbacks and it shows their love and commitment for nouns and don’t feel this retro is excessive. thank you for building in nouns!