Sent from https://goops.com Nouns Governance Pool

Seems to be leaning incredibly heavy into stEth which is already a large part of the DAO's treasury. And while I like the argument that the stake rewards provide additional capital to fund nounish projects, going this heavy into one protocol feels risky.

I mean, this is crypto.

Seems to be leaning incredibly heavy into stEth which is already a large part of the DAO's treasury. And while I like the argument that the stake rewards provide additional capital to fund nounish projects, going this heavy into one protocol feels risky.

I mean, this is crypto.

why not another protocol?

sent from voter.wtf

FOR - 3 VOTES

AGAINST - 35 VOTES

fiveoceans_dev | "I believe there is no need to constantly gamble with treasury"

eltonpenguin | "Gambling"

benbodhi | "Already too much in Lido imo"

ABSTAINS - 7 VOTES

sent from voter.wtf

the treasury is already majority in LSTs and a 50/50 split represents a good r/r

yes yes yes gang gang gang gang steak so good yum yum gang gang

I am voting against this prop due to my concerns about Lido's overwhelming dominance in the liquid staking derivatives (LSD) sector. This concentration of power could lead to systemic risks for not only DeFi but also the Ethereum network itself. stETH accounts for ~35% of all currently staked ETH, and this number needs to be at least beneath 33% for the good of Ethereum imo. In this context, I cannot bring myself to vote for this prop at this time. I'd be more inclined if it proposed converting to a non-stETH LSD.

sent from voter.wtf

I recommend everyone to read this report, <Is stETH Liquid Enough?>
https://marketing.kaiko.com/is-steth-liquid-enough

The risk of mass liquidation of stETH is higher than we imagined.

largely agree with the following - i too am averse towards "indexification" of the dao, but largely agree that staking is our equivalent of a risk free rate. Even with traditional companies or organizations, they will park cash in money market funds or have basic treasury management functions to make sure they are getting the most out of their money for when they do choose to spend on productive assets. My only ask going forward would be to maintain some kind of programmatic notion of treasury mgmt, rather than a whole dao vote every time we want to deposit/withdraw a check from the stETH ATM.
reVoteWithReason from 0xfc218f

(noun 40 voting via agora proxy)
I'm voting FOR here but mostly for different reasons.
There's a bit of a shared assumption in hindsight and noun 12's vote reasons that a poison pill prop is "petty", "short-sighted", "needless value destruction", etc. Is it? Senior leadership considering a poison pill when facing a corporate raid is not viewed as reckless. In fact, the fact that it is possible (that they would consider it) is often a deterrent against corporate raid attempts themselves. So I don't think it's crazy for the DAO to consider a poison pill and the language around considering it as petty or reckless feels a bit too favorable towards the arbers. IMO they aren't entitled to anything and its our sovereign right to consider the full range of options on what is best for our own interests. (note: I'm not saying that the motivation of the nounders were to poison pill, I don't think that it was (?), I'm just reacting to the framing following that assumption).
I also recommend ppl read charlie's post: https://mirror.xyz/cfeng.eth/8j9FljMPp2COKLovoHF6j9P1I_lSP-xzSh8QM8cw1iE. I don't agree with the conclusion (that auction price is destined for a death spiral if we don't "fix" something here with something like poison pills) but it presents a framing in which thinking about these types of options are a rationale thing to do.
THAT SAID, I wouldn't have voted in favor of the alien punk bid prop (I'm very tempted but all things considered likely no) b/c I don't want us to get distracted by nft investment decisions AND b/c I don't think a poison pill type thing is needed for us right now. We can consider it if auction price considers to slide post fork and we have this problem again. For now I think the increased alignment from shedding the members that side with arbers for a fork would be net positive. Trading treasury size for increased alignment is a worthy trade for us b/c not having enough treasury was never a limiting factor for us. Alignment has been.
So while I don't agree with voting FOR this prop for the reasons of defending against poison pill props, I'm voting for b/c I'd kind of like to get over with the "how much should we stake?" discussion. I disagree with wilson that this will lead to a slippery slope of talking more about treasury investments. I think we've always drew the line at the "risk free rate" eth investing—eth staking—and while there has been additional considerations of which staking pools and depeg insurance that popped up, I don't think the rabbit holes here are infinite. I also don't think getting to our eth position to 100% staked eth limits our spending in any way. We can distribute stETH or support auto selling it for USDC (like we do for ETH right now and is what most prop builders ask for anyways). I almost just want to get this conversation over with and be close to 100% staked eth, build the infra to support that seamlessly, and move on. Also the ~500 ETH additional yield we'll get from staking the 10k ETH is not nothing. It's being able to fund another ~$1M / year sized team. That's like being able to fund another nounish or agora sized team effort, which is meaningful!
For all these reasons... voting FOR!

sent from voter.wtf

sent from voter.wtf

(noun 40 voting via agora proxy)

I'm voting FOR here but mostly for different reasons.

There's a bit of a shared assumption in hindsight and noun 12's vote reasons that a poison pill prop is "petty", "short-sighted", "needless value destruction", etc. Is it? Senior leadership considering a poison pill when facing a corporate raid is not viewed as reckless. In fact, the fact that it is possible (that they would consider it) is often a deterrent against corporate raid attempts themselves. So I don't think it's crazy for the DAO to consider a poison pill and the language around considering it as petty or reckless feels a bit too favorable towards the arbers. IMO they aren't entitled to anything and its our sovereign right to consider the full range of options on what is best for our own interests. (note: I'm not saying that the motivation of the nounders were to poison pill, I don't think that it was (?), I'm just reacting to the framing following that assumption).

I also recommend ppl read charlie's post: https://mirror.xyz/cfeng.eth/8j9FljMPp2COKLovoHF6j9P1I_lSP-xzSh8QM8cw1iE. I don't agree with the conclusion (that auction price is destined for a death spiral if we don't "fix" something here with something like poison pills) but it presents a framing in which thinking about these types of options are a rationale thing to do.

THAT SAID, I wouldn't have voted in favor of the alien punk bid prop (I'm very tempted but all things considered likely no) b/c I don't want us to get distracted by nft investment decisions AND b/c I don't think a poison pill type thing is needed for us right now. We can consider it if auction price considers to slide post fork and we have this problem again. For now I think the increased alignment from shedding the members that side with arbers for a fork would be net positive. Trading treasury size for increased alignment is a worthy trade for us b/c not having enough treasury was never a limiting factor for us. Alignment has been.

So while I don't agree with voting FOR this prop for the reasons of defending against poison pill props, I'm voting for b/c I'd kind of like to get over with the "how much should we stake?" discussion. I disagree with wilson that this will lead to a slippery slope of talking more about treasury investments. I think we've always drew the line at the "risk free rate" eth investing—eth staking—and while there has been additional considerations of which staking pools and depeg insurance that popped up, I don't think the rabbit holes here are infinite. I also don't think getting to our eth position to 100% staked eth limits our spending in any way. We can distribute stETH or support auto selling it for USDC (like we do for ETH right now and is what most prop builders ask for anyways). I almost just want to get this conversation over with and be close to 100% staked eth, build the infra to support that seamlessly, and move on. Also the ~500 ETH additional yield we'll get from staking the 10k ETH is not nothing. It's being able to fund another ~$1M / year sized team. That's like being able to fund another nounish or agora sized team effort, which is meaningful!

For all these reasons... voting FOR!

I agree with hindsight's reasons, but voting differently to advocate for changing the parameters slightly.

I think the DAO should maintain around ~6mo of operating spend as ETH. 10K ETH additional would reduce ETH in treasury to around ~3.5K and around 4mo.

Would recommend considering two things: reduce ask to 7500 ETH and diversify into other staking providers to reduce concentration risk. Overall in agreement with staking more ETH to increase runway. Would vote "YES" if parameters were tuned down slightly.

First, we have already invested half of treasury into stETH, and should consider counter party risk.

Second, Nouns is not investment DAO. We should find a better way to spend fund to spread Nouns community.

I have repeatedly voted against staking, and I will do so again on this prop.

I do not think that the DAO should be pursuing small yield on its treasury. It exposes us to risk and opens up all kinds of debates that I think are a waste of DAO attention: should we have insurance, who should we stake with, etc.

I think the purpose of the DAO is to curate and empower (with funding) the global Nouns community. There are many competing and complementary ideas for what Nouns is, and we gradually discover the most compelling by funding various different versions and seeing the outcome.

I believe that the most exciting future for Noun is one in which Nouns are valuable because vote power is valuable because people are seeking for the DAOs approval and empowerment.

Personally, I do not think a DAO focused on small staking yield is a compelling vision of Nouns or good use of our time. If people want to stake, they are free to do so with their own ETH. I see small gain to the DAO in staking, outsized by the downside in the risks and time these kinds of proposals take.

Specifically here, many people seem to be voting for this in order to block the Prop 342. I do not think Prop 342 will pass, and I also think that we should focus on defeating proposals we think are bad, rather than pursuing round about ways that make it more difficult for the DAO to do things with its ETH.

sent from voter.wtf

+1 to nounalysis reason... Lido is not the right move here. Might support a different proposal using some other protocol.

The Alien Punk bid proposals were put up by Nounders, first by Seneca's delegated Nouns, then by 4156 directly. It was bad and reckless leadership. It was also a 50-75% overpay for an illiquid speculative NFT investment that is ill-suited for Nouns DAO based on its genesis and history and raison d'etre. No one bought a Noun thinking this was Flamingo DAO. This type of Proposal gave de facto blessing to make Nouns into a (probably terrible) investment DAO which would be a serious mistake and I thought something everyone was against from the jump. It stands in stark contrast to stated concerns over the risk of the Treasury being in things like stETH, which are -- compared to overpaying by 50-75% for an illiquid grail NFT -- "safe." The Ether Rock proposals and subsequent Alien Punk bid proposals were equally reckless and bad faith.

If this forestalls or prevents bad faith Proposals, great. The income generated from holding stETH also amounts to ~500 ETH / yr, which is more thank 2 weeks of auctions.

reVoteWithReason from 0xhindsight.eth

I'm not an arb buyer nor no to everything voter and I’m not sure what my stance would have been if this was put up in the absence of events last week (probably against) but…
I think the prop was forced up by the original alien punk prop and should pass because of the second alien punk prop as a protective measure against willing and needless value destruction of the DAO treasury and reputation
There is nothing apart from this passing to stop a petty ‘poison pill’ prop from being resubmitted. (And since I wrote this a third has been submitted)
This situation has been forced by a short-sighted move. It is defensive but it is also necessary imo.
Even if this prop passes there will be >3.5k Eth (+ future auction contributions) to spend on props without unstaking so will have no impact on the functioning of the DAO apart from blocking potentially harmful moves like this that serve no one.
Concerns over the amount of eth already staked in lido are secondary to the shorter term threats of these actions and either side can unstake either after a fork has happened or if it doesn't happen and these differences are resolved.

sent from voter.wtf

reVoteWithReason from 0xhindsight.eth

I'm not an arb buyer nor no to everything voter and I’m not sure what my stance would have been if this was put up in the absence of events last week (probably against) but…
I think the prop was forced up by the original alien punk prop and should pass because of the second alien punk prop as a protective measure against willing and needless value destruction of the DAO treasury and reputation
There is nothing apart from this passing to stop a petty ‘poison pill’ prop from being resubmitted. (And since I wrote this a third has been submitted)
This situation has been forced by a short-sighted move. It is defensive but it is also necessary imo.
Even if this prop passes there will be >3.5k Eth (+ future auction contributions) to spend on props without unstaking so will have no impact on the functioning of the DAO apart from blocking potentially harmful moves like this that serve no one.
Concerns over the amount of eth already staked in lido are secondary to the shorter term threats of these actions and either side can unstake either after a fork has happened or if it doesn't happen and these differences are resolved.

sent from voter.wtf

stETH is a better way of holding eth

I'm not an arb buyer nor no to everything voter and I’m not sure what my stance would have been if this was put up in the absence of events last week (probably against) but…

I think the prop was forced up by the original alien punk prop and should pass because of the second alien punk prop as a protective measure against willing and needless value destruction of the DAO treasury and reputation

There is nothing apart from this passing to stop a petty ‘poison pill’ prop from being resubmitted. (And since I wrote this a third has been submitted)

This situation has been forced by a short-sighted move. It is defensive but it is also necessary imo.

Even if this prop passes there will be >3.5k Eth (+ future auction contributions) to spend on props without unstaking so will have no impact on the functioning of the DAO apart from blocking potentially harmful moves like this that serve no one.

Concerns over the amount of eth already staked in lido are secondary to the shorter term threats of these actions and either side can unstake either after a fork has happened or if it doesn't happen and these differences are resolved.

GM. I believe there is already too much of the treasury being staked in Lido. I am not interested in staking more, and if I were, I would want to use some other protocol that isn't Lido since we already have a lot in Lido.