0xae65e700…46c0sent to0xb6d1eb1a…dab3·#18,744,972·view on Etherscan
(noun40 voting via agora)
I don't think allowing ppl to pick a noun from our treasury that they like makes nouns fungible!
I agree with three issues with the current implementation but they all feel workable (and are noted as planned improvements in v2 according to prop 457):
- swaps shouldn't create props (voting fatigue is real). we should vote on gifting nouns but not on swaps or redemptions.
- swaps shouldn't be free: i would likely be comfortable with a 5% ish fee so that ppl don't take it too lightly (this is a configurable param in v2 plans)
- swaps shouldn't be for all nouns in treasury: let's leave the lower id ones off the table (I'd be supportive of only exposing later half of our treasury nouns).
but if the swaps don't create voting props, has a fee applied, and can't touch half of the lower ID nouns in treasury, then I feel like this is something we should be excited about.
why? well, it allows to direct more of the organic forever noun buying energy to the current auction. yes, it makes the currently sold noun a bit more of a redemption token but A) it's still available for someone else to swap for as their forever noun in the future, B) if in the current auction someone really wants the noun they can outbid the buyers that are trying to buy the noun to swap for another noun so doesn't block that intention either (just makes it more expensive to win the auction b/c more competition).
ultimately, i think the net effect is not that nouns become more fungible but rather that we make choosing forever nouns for ppl easier and at the same time increase the present day auction price by having the person that wants the present noun compete with everyone that wants one of the treasury nouns available (above the noun ID that we exclude). that feels really good to me! one of the core things we need right now is to induce more present day auction demand from organic buyers. ppl that want one of the treasury nouns while willing to pay (let's say) a 5% fee almost explicitly is a non arber an is an organic nouns art enjoyoor b/c if they are an arber then all nouns are fungible to them why pay a fee to swap for a treasury noun? so like ironically ppl that pay a fee to swap for a treasury noun are almost demonstrating onchain that they don't see nouns as fungible and they prefer the art of a particular noun.
so while I'm not entirely in favor of v1 i'm voting in favor here to signal that i'm very supportive of the v2 and that the paperclip team shouldn't be too discouraged of the against votes here! (and in the off chance this passes, i'm happy for wizardo to get a clean wizard head noun)