There has been considerable discussion around how the DAO could acquire Nouns to allocate to builders as part of proposals. There has not been clear consensus on the matter. Rather than letting disagreement stall the DAO I believe it's important to support a few competitive solutions and let them prove themselves.

This is interesting technology, its already built, and it would allow us to trustlessly funnel Nouns into the treasury. This tech does not allow for precise head selection (Beer for Bud Light, Chicken for Stoopid Buddy), which means there still is a place for a centralized group like NAC and other technical solutions being developed.

This is called a "Trial" but a broader vision is not communicated. I wish it were.

I'm going to imagine that the next steps would be to fund this with much more ETH and let it run continuously. I am not a fan of the effect this would have on the auction experience for bidders and for people watching the auctions. Having a bot effectively enforce a price floor feels less fun and makes our core mechanism less authentic and entertaining.

Also, as a builder who would love to be compensated with a Noun at some point, this tool isn't the ideal method for me. I would prefer to receive ETH so I can buy a Noun at auction and get the full Nouns experience.

I support us buying 1 Noun with this tool, as an experiment.

Poll failed to meet vote threshold.

FOR - 22 VOTES

byhardy | "ez yes, has been useful for lils. also, not a bad idea to snag a Noun to hold in the treasury."

AGAINST - 6 VOTES

profwerder | "I’d be in favor of this when the need was there. Doesn’t make sense until we have a specifc builder waiting on a noun especially since they may want something specific (aka basketball)."

wiz, i appreciate everything you do. for this prop, it doesn't feel like this is a good replacement to NAC.

• i have a similar outlook as the reasoning behind bower's & wilson's votes.

Federation rocks!

Voting with Carella on this one... I prefer the Verbs method of adding more Nouns to the treasury.

I'm voting against this proposal because I'm having a hard time understanding its purpose. While it may indeed have potential value, the lack of clear reasoning in the proposal (coupled with the fact that a similar trial is already underway via Lil Nouns) leads me to vote against. Beyond that, I have a feeling that implementing an autobidder with the sole purpose of sending Nouns to the treasury may not be the best decision. I would appreciate hearing clearer reasoning of why this should be implemented from a potential future submission.

Seems like a good direction to allow the DAO to control the acquisitions in a more trustless way.
If the auto bidder could be controlled by few to the detriment of the DAO, I think we’d have bigger problems.

As a fan of Wiz's work, I find the autobidder bot for DAOs, clubs, and individuals looking to purchase a Noun quite impressive. However, I am uncertain why NounsDAO needs to acquire Nouns through this method. If NounsDAO is seeking to add more Nouns to its Treasury, I believe the methods being explored by Verbs are more preferable. In fact, there is already an available method being experimented with by DAOs using Nouns Builder.

Excerpt from my newsletter (https://t.co/BFd43TBghs) :

I'm going to hammer on proposal standards here. This proposal is rather shallow and difficult to understand for someone non technical. It also doesn't go into key details, like how this would benefit the DAO and the advantages over the current model.

Since the tech is already built, effectively, what we're voting on is the funding of the contract with enough ETH for one bid. And I don't think that's the right way to go about it now.

The right approach would be to have the Autobidder available as a public tool. Then if members of the DAO believe more Nouns should be acquired they can make a proposal with a proper "strategy" including amount, duration and the benefits of such actions.

Even though I am voting against this version, I do believe that if the DAO wants to acquire more Nouns, the Autobidder is a better and fully decentralized way of doing it.

Mostly agree with Wilson and Noun 40's reasoning - don't like the precedent of setting an auction floor for Nouns, and it's not yet clear to me why this option is needed right now.

I do however think people should be proposing alternative solutions to problems the DAO faces and just because Verbs is working on e.g. Airdrop doesn't mean others shouldn't propose their own solutions. But this specific prop doesn't do it for me.

I don't understand this prop tbh.

we currently use NAC to acquire nouns. there's flaws to NAC that we fully recognize and as a community have debated alternative designs extensively and settled on a path: https://snapshot.org/#/nouns.eth/proposal/0xebe4aec5b96dc5c008902da341bcd4936f5aa09baf73daaa545259183b203089

then what is this proposal trying to say? that we should actually use this rather than the path we've set out? or that we should use this as a replacement of NAC for the time being?

lil nouns already uses this so the purpose of the prop is not to test if it works. after asking on twitter it seems like the purpose is to actually build social consensus around this as the preferred approach of the dao acquiring nouns.

but the prop is not written in a way to even have that conversation and if we were to have that conversation it has many flaws including the ones that wilson has pointed out.

voting no bc I don't think this is the best mechanism for the dao to acquire nouns and tbh I find the prop a bit misguided

The first Barney the Dinosaur was a seemingly harmless character. However, the third Barney was brought to court in 1997, for sexual harrasment of a minor. He was found guilty in February of 1998, and served 5 years. He is now a registered sex offender in the state of Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia.

it seems possible, or even probable that this will be repurposed to attempt to enforce a floor price for nouns, which i'm strongly against. also, if verbs current rage quit wip is implemented, the dao will have plenty of noun inventory to redistribute without the need to interfere with daily auctions

big fan of the team but im worried this prop is in fact a trojan horse

Thanks to Wiz for the prop and the work here.

I have several concerns about the mechanism design. Everyone can see the min and max bids, and so there is effectively a floor price on the auction. The incentive for the DAO and Noun holders would be to see the max bid realized and so someone could repeatedly bid (and get tips) from the auto bidder, and then outbid it, and bid again until the max bid is reached. I think in most cases it is better for someone to use a human bidder that cannot be gamed like this. If someone wants to bid at a specific price for a Noun they can just us a collection offer?

That said, it sounds like Lil Nouns is already using this and is happy with it, and I am glad to hear it is useful to them. Beyond my concerns on the mechanism design, I don't see a reason for Nouns DAO to use this right now.

From Twitter I gather that there is some idea here that this should be used to replace Nouns Acquisition Committee (NAC). I do not think this is a good replacement, and I would rather hold out for the paradigm where the DAO can directly vote to mint someone a Noun. Moreover, if this indeed a motivation it would have been better if it were stated directly in the prop, in my opinion.

Thanks again for your work on this and for the Nouns community at large!

AutoBidder provides an interface for the DAO to acquire new Nouns with parameters (e.g., MaxBid) we agree on. The contract has already successfully bid and acquired nouns for Lil Nouns and Wizards DAO. I think it makes sense to try this out with Nouns proper.