Blank end ;(

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

FOR - 29 VOTES

benbodhi | "The old switcharoo"

AGAINST - 4 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/454/votes FOR 140 VOTES AGAINST 0 VOTES ABSTAINS 76 VOTES 0x63aa1670aBAF10b93a8fD9804eA304641Ec8aCE8 | "Until the implementation of autonomous voting for off-chain props, I vote abstain on Nouns props. " 0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "I'll only vote on proposals that require explanations once the proposer attends our weekly calls to explain them."

frownish

"I'd been waiting for six months to get a noun.. i'd be looking every single day on auction waiting for the one that called to me" - Jesse Pollack on The Lil Nouns Show (https://x.com/thenounsquare/status/1733247144570576946?s=20).

I assume there are many more people who, like him, waited or will wait x amount of months until they find the noun that speaks to them before making their first bid. An endearing story but nonetheless a point of friction we cannot afford at a time where nouns is not onboarding as many true fans as we'd like. A swapping mech will reduce the time it takes for a committed buyer to join and get to their forever noun.

Feels very positive sum and respectful of Nouners to support them in swapping for the Noun of their dreams. Thank you Val for your service and engagement with Nouns s 🫡

(noun40 voting via agora)

please see vwr on prop 453

Hi nounnounounnoun.eth, thank you for the questions and thoughtful response! I bid on noun 933 not because I loved the look of it, but because I believe in the nouns DAO and had the opportunity to participate in the auction. Feeling very fortunate I won the bid (shouts out to memeium for not outbidding me :) I'm excited to be involved and to participate. I saw this proposal on warpcast, and seemed fun so I decided to participate. I understand's everyone's points, and they make sense to me, specially noun 4156's note regarding how the current process of this proposal taxes the attention of dao members. I still think is a cool idea, and wonder if it can be done in a different way where it doesn't require so much of dao members' attention and time. Not sure if this is possible at all, but I also wonder if we were able to swap nouns, the noun id/age can stay with the noun going to the treasury after the swap happens. So only the makeup/traits of the noun is what is being swapped, not the id/age.

Either way, it is a really creative idea, and I support creativity. Love that we are able to come together to discuss pros and cons and come to a decision together.

I don't like the precedent of an onchain proposal any time someone wants to swap a noun. Governance fatigue is real; if the DAO endorses the practice of swapping Nouns (which is an entirely separate conversation) then it should be permissionless, e.g. separate audited contract that has approval to transfer Nouns from the treasury on swap. On the topic of if swapping Nouns is a good thing, I need to think more on that. 9999's sentiment makes sense to me though.

Onchain DAO votes for someone to swap a Noun are
inefficient in ETH and attention, it also is just picking off the treasury and reducing scarcity.

I hope to never see such a Proposal again.

Swapping is a fun design space with ingredients that speak to me but all-in-all cone makes an incredible argument and i choose to follow suit here.

tl;dr:
Nouns are non-fungible/unique. Pooling undermines this principle and we should not endorse it.
Bidders should bid on a Noun they connect with, not as a means to access another Noun.
Swaps should include personal reasoning and should be case-by-case. We should discourage automated proposals that may flood governance or cause voter fatigue.

To valgtaylor.eth:
Why do you want to give up the Noun you won at auction a few days ago? Why bid on it if you don’t connect with it? What has changed?

To Paperclip Labs:
Thank you for building with Nouns and choosing to spend your time here. While I think the NounSwap protocol is not a good fit for the Nouns, I appreciate your effort.

vwr:
While Noun swapping might be good for Nouners, it’s bad for Nouns. As collective custodians of the project, we should not be treating Nouns as fungible. We should not be creating mechanisms that treat them as interchangeable.

Nouns should be respected as individual entities. When someone acquires a Noun, they are choosing a specific one. They should not be choosing a Noun in order to opt into a pool of Nouns. The DAO should not create this pool or endorse this behaviour. In fact, we have a history of rejecting such ideas.

Sometimes, a Noun is won because its aesthetic didn't resonate as strongly with other bidders, allowing the auction winner to secure it without competition. There is a daily interaction of market forces and visual art that’s part of what makes Nouns interesting: a specific set of economic and aesthetic considerations happen with each new Noun. Using a Noun as a gateway to another in the pool changes the incentives, the process, and the unique qualities of the Noun itself.

This automated proposal claims that Noun swapping increases community engagement, but without a personal reason attached, we are not engaging with anyone. The swap is not “strategic” (as the proposal claims) because the DAO has no way to understand why it should agree to the swap.

In situations where a Nouner wishes to exchange their Noun for one from the treasury, it's important that the proposal contains their own explanation. This is an actual form of community engagement where we collectively consider the viewpoint of another Nouner and decide whether to honor their request. We’ve done this several times recently when gifting Nouns and it has been a successful way to have conversations and strengthen our community.

Let's ensure that our governance energy is focused on meaningful and thoughtful proposals, rather than routine, automated ones.

I welcome a conversation with valgtaylor.eth or any Nouner who is coming to the DAO for a swap. I do not believe this automated, impersonal approach serves us well.

As a final point, anything is possible in code. We can employ any manner of updates that change any part of the project. However, we have recognized that our code is our culture. And changes to code, change culture. Just because there are many Nouns in the treasury and the code to make swaps is relatively simple, doesn't mean the impact to the project will be small.

appreciate the novel design of the proposal template mechanism, but free noun swapping does not feel incentive compatible. simultaneously taxes the attention of dao members and dilutes the importance of noun id / age. while the idea might be directionally correct this implementation is not it