🥌 🥌 x FOR
↳ benbodhi.eth
↳ ourrevolution.eth

🥌 x ABSTAIN
↳ 0x32d1...d4f5

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

Nothing has materially changed from Proposal 384 (Lower fork threshold to 10%). We've continue to back reliable teams who require a large budget, and yet we still need to spend 5700 ETH to completely deter predatory behavior (see theburn.wtf).

Below is from Prop 384 and the reason why fork threshold should stay low until we have concrete plans to distribute Nouns, effectively spend, or burn the treasury.

Isn't a lower threshold just making it easier for arbitrageurs?
It is widely understood that we need to accelerate spending to close the arbitrage opportunity. Yet, figuring out exactly how to thoughtfully accelerate spending is a process that takes time. In the meantime, it seems like we'll be co-existing with arbers and should make the most out of the situation. Lowering the threshold increases arber competition, accelerating the process, decreasing their profits, and allowing them to drain less of the treasury.
Doesn't inviting arbitrageurs disrupt governance?
A lower threshold doesn't change that arbers will vote No on proposals and attempt to block spending. Conversely, it makes it less likely that arbers grow into a big cohort with significant voting power, which is a side effect of accumulating to reach the fork threshold.
Why not raise the threshold instead?
While raising the threshold might seem like a good stopgap to defend the dao against further arbitrage, it comes with an air of intellectual dishonesty and risks being regressive, while not accomplishing that much in terms of protection.

agree w prop logic

I am against. Giving people choice/liquidity to exit an organization counter-intuitively increases org alignment in my opinion. While I understand the protectionist instinct to raise the threshold to fork to be 30%, I believe that actually at the limit the best solution is a world where any nouner can choose to exit (or fork) at any point in time. Imagine if OpenSea only allowed people to sell out of ABC NFT community if N people agreed, or if Uniswap only allowed people to sell out of XYZ token if N amt was swapped. This means only holders with substantial financial influence or political influence can enact change - very frownish. I do not feel that belief is aligned with nounish (and cryptonative) values of open and permissionless expression and choice. I would support a lower fork threshold.

supportive of increasing fork threshold - folks who were earnestly interested in forking have had an opportunity at lower thresholds and this raises the bar for anyone else.

Let's get natural demand winning more auctions!

Forking is not just a mechanism used by arbers. It’s a way for anyone to modify the settings of Nouns DAO, while still inheriting the provenance of Nouns. This sets forks apart from derivatives and is a feature of Nouns that is rare in the DAO ecosystem.

Forking used to be a dirty word in open source software, and then it became positive and seen as a mechanism for collective improvement. Nouns should see forks the same way - an opportunity for collective improvement by the community.

I would love to see forks of Nouns that tweak art, auction parameters, or treasury spending. This is possible with a 10% threshold, but nearly impossible with a 30% threshold.

My preference would be a 1 Noun threshold for forks. That would let innovation flourish while reducing the coordination ability of arbers. This won’t happen, but 10% still leaves room for innovation. 30% makes that impossible.

sent from voter.wtf

far too much eth in the treasury for this to make sense now.

everyone seems to have forgotten what got us to this point in the first place. bv-oriented buyers saw steep discounts, accumulated en masse, and froze spending. they did so w/o guarantee of possible exit. expect these same actors to return.
but, seems it will pass, so, what can we do?
spend aggressively, &, crucially,
release as many nouns as possible to aligned folks.

whatever the ultimate market value, it will be a lot harder to accumulate 300 nouns than 100. if we continue to be stingy there the treasury nouns will increasingly transition from opportunity to encumbrance.

Sakoku incoming. let's make the most of it.

https://dune.com/beetle/nouns-dao-book-vs-auction-value

Any organization should move with agility and experiment, just not recklessly. Over the past few months, the fork settings have allowed Nouns to increase alignment, and lowering the threshold earlier enabled any stragglers to make a decision after seeing the near-term impact of the fork. Now, we can increase the fork value again and see the impact on both buying as well as alignment. Most importantly, we will see if the modeling done by the verbs team actually pans out -- or if there's another variable we should be considering.

Think this is a wise move.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/439/votes

FOR 972 VOTES
0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "Very good idea. should have gone this way after fork 1"

AGAINST 737 VOTES
0xF3200191b1b6344bfBEF5F4B6e73Bb47E2C1B8b5 | "couldn't he wait 2 days to make sure we sold our Nouns before proposing this???"

ABSTAINS 69 VOTES
0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "I'll only vote on proposals that require explanations once the proposer attends our weekly calls to explain them."

Nouns is a fun game with many variables, making it good to experiment and find the best setting for the project's longevity.

+1 krel

This is a great opportunity to cast my genesis Nouns governance vote as a new Nouner! Go Nouns DAO!

It was idiotic to lower it to 10% in the first place, this would be an improvement. A lot less echochamber recklessness would help in general.

I was in favor of this after fork 0 and did not see 10% as a good move. I think we would have avoided a third fork without and would have given us more time between 0 and 1 to adjust to the new circumstances.

https://warpcast.com/nounishprof/0xb563327b

Although I was fine with the shorter fork time, I'm glad to see this adjustment overall and believe it will provide more stability.

fuck the arbers

Tbh I don't see the move to 10% as successful, felt like it just made it easier to arb the treasury, even if with a lower margin. Support this move on the opposite direction.