ABSTAIN x 🥌 🥌
↳ spencerperkins.eth
↳ 0x32d1...d4f5

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

+1 oxwiz.eth

While it is desirable for a beloved noun to reach those who need it, I have come to imagine that it would be sadder than the current situation to see the noun returned to the treasury through a swap.

+1 wiz

thanks for all the work you've put in so far. the governance process can be awkward sometimes but try to internalize the results as market feedback. this may not be the iteration that the entire community wants but directionally interest is there

From almost the day I first learned about nouns, I hoped to one day own a clean frog noun of my own. When that personal goal finally came within reach, it was still actually quite difficult to achieve. I finally owned a noun and it was an amazing, aesthetic, low ID stereo head— beautiful, like all nouns are in their own way. But I wanted my noun to be my forever onchain identity, and for that reason I really wanted to try to swap it for a frog head, however many steps that might require.

I tried to swap with some existing frog head owners, but nobody was interested to let one go. Then, a really clean, green frog (#696) appeared and my big-hearted friend Jarmen offered to bid on it at auction, and hold it for me while I tried to find a buyer for the stereo. But days went by and secondary liquidity was low. Eventually, I told him he should sell the frog if he had a buyer, because I didn’t want it on my conscience. As luck would have it, overnight, he listed the frog before I had unlisted the stereo and both sold before we woke. Back to square one.

After a few more attempts at minting a frog and winning it at auction, the Nounders were kind enough to agree to sell me Noun 730 for a similar price to what I was able to sell the stereo. I am eternally grateful to them for this. Finally, I held my forever noun. I didn’t even think for a second about forking it. I am not likely to ever sell it. And I think there are many such cases. Snax willingly paid a premium and pled his case to one Wilson Cusack to get his hands on the perfect Forever Noun for Pizza DAO. I would love for this process to be more painless for future fans of nouns. Part of the fun and absurdity of being a member of an NFT DAO is the connection we feel with one SVG or another, and this will vary wildly from person to person. If we don’t see the value in embracing this part of the game of nouns, we might as well be another ERC20 DAO imo.

On another personal level, a great deal of energy and love went into the minting of many, many unique and beautiful nouns in 2023, and for the team at TNS, and regular listeners of Noun O’ Clock Live, it was disheartening to see so many of these bought to fork because of the market forces at the time, and ultimately end up in the treasury or the escrow contract. In my opinion, something like NounSwap could allow the DAO the opportunity to give these nouns a second chance to be truly loved by someone.

I know that the nounders and in particular, the artists who gave us this incredible infinite art show, love and value every single noun that is born and only want what’s best for this project, and I want them to know that I do too. In hindsight, I think a lot of the discussion around fungibility in the context of NounSwap hasn’t been particularly constructive, because it just quickly devolves into a discussion of semantics. I don’t even necessarily believe that lower ID nouns are worth more; 9999 made a compelling point in his vWr here about how nouns can derive premiums from any number of characteristics like aesthetic, birthday, humour, etc, and I tend to agree. Ultimately, these are all parameters and details that the DAO can figure out onchain, but I just think that nouns could greatly benefit from attracting more long-term community members who love their noun so much that it becomes functionally-unfungible to them.

With the vote as it stands now, it seems unlikely that the current iteration of this proposal will pass, so I want to thank Cole and Spencer for the thoughtfulness, passion and positive energy they have put into this exploration so far, and also thank everyone who took the time to share their opinions on this topic. If anything, this was a very interesting onchain conversation to have. I am nonetheless still hopeful that there is potentially some middle ground version of this idea that could straddle the line between governance fatigue and permissionlessness execution, and exist as a compromise that serves the DAO and also protects the long-term interests of the project, which I trust is what the Nounders want to do first and foremost. I hope the community will engage openly with Paperclip to try and figure that out in the coming months.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/457/votes FOR 121 VOTES 0xCEEd9585854F12F81A0103861b83b995A64AD915 | "I think this app may have multiple use cases and would like to see how it plays out." AGAINST 13 VOTES 0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "Cool idea. more suited for garden payment. expectations it sunsets it self within 6 months for various reasons." ABSTAINS 63 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."*https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/457/votes FOR 121 VOTES 0xCEEd9585854F12F81A0103861b83b995A64AD915 | "I think this app may have multiple use cases and would like to see how it plays out." AGAINST 13 VOTES 0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "Cool idea. more suited for garden payment. expectations it sunsets it self within 6 months for various reasons." ABSTAINS 63 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."

Poll failed to meet vote threshold.

FOR - 15 VOTES

benbodhi | "I am more for v2 and would like to see these guys continue building to there. I agree that each swap shouldn't create new proposals and add to voter fatigue. Paperclip crew are great devs and I'd love to see more.
I'd also like to see some interesting fee mechanisms such as higher fees for nounder nouns ending in 0, scaling higher fees for lower IDs and things like that. It could be a real revenue source for Nouns. I disagree that it would leave undesirable nouns, because everyone has different taste."

AGAINST - 21 VOTES

borg00000 | "seems expensive for something that could be done fairly easily for less cost, most interesting part is the gifted noun-redeemable token imo"

ABSTAINS - 3 VOTES

I see there is demand for swapping, but I also suspect there might be unforeseen consequences and we should pause for a min and think about it. I am also not a fan of the way the ask is structured, which would require an additional proposal and additional 88K for V2 if I understand correctly (which seems to be the version we would want). Casting a vote of caution but am open to an iteration of that proposal after some reflection. Appreciate the team's pre-prosposal proof of work and encourage them to stick around to find DAO market fit.

(noun40 voting via agora)

i don’t understand disagree with most of the opposing votes. noun12 is voting against the current implementation it seems(takes voter attention, not value accretive to dao). both of those points are addressed in v2 (permissionless, has a fee).

9999 focuses on fungibility but i personally don’t think something like the redemption token makes treasury nouns fungible at all. it’s actually something super needed for example for The Prop Awards i’d love to advocate for the dao. so let’s say quarterly we want to vote for the top 2 props and the winning prop builders get a noun and some eth. in this context, because we don’t know apriori who the winners are going to be we can’t actually give them a noun they would actually want. this problem exists for nouner scout as well! it’s a real problem. we want a way to give ppl (that we think are deserving) a way to “pick the noun you want”. creating a way to give ppl the right to pick does NOT make nouns more fungible imo. i also don’t think swaps with a decent fee make nouns fungible either. if i sell my nouns on opensea and buy a different noun there that doesn’t require you posting a personal values based approval request to the dao and that trading ability on the secondary market doesn’t make nouns fungible.

krel’s point is around the fact that the two props didn’t pass so like did they deliver utility why the retro. but i really feel differently here. we voted the props down bc we didn’t like this version of nounswap and presumably didn’t want to encourage a dozen more props like them. but clearly there is demand to trade for treasury nouns. clearly it is getting interest from the broader community as well on twitter and on farc. they also ignited this conversation as well which is all real value. this team just saw a tweet from toady describing a real need and got a lot of encouragement to build this thing and built a thing that works. i think it absolutely deserves a retro and should get more funding from us if we want v2 to be built and i think we do!

very much in favor of the team continuing to build nounswap towards v2 and i think it would benefit us a lot (not just in the redemption token usefulness mentioned above but also in the sense that it can pull forward a lot of forever noun buying demand into the present moment by allowing treasury nouns to be bought for an added fee)

Appreciate the responses from this team, and how they are addressing the community's concerns. I still feel that this idea is a great way to get people excited about their noun. Great opportunity to send lonely treasury nouns to a great home where they will be loved ⌐◨-◨

My response from prop 454:

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 love that this turns the Nouns sitting in the Treasury, due to the forks, into a feature. It feels like a very Nounish thing to do. I also love the idea of making Nouners, new and old, happy by trading for a Noun they feel represents them. It feels very Nounish to vote on acts of kindness for each other. I'm excited to bring this team into the ecosystem as they've already proven capable, have been great with feedback, and know what is expected of them. The unpredictable second-order effects of the fork mechanics may well spawn many beautiful new initiatves.

$145k and a Noun for something that I think substracts value from the DAO (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)

agree with the concerns around size of ask

on the swap token, however, i dont see the issue. If the dao were to gift this token via scout, for example, all it is not implying fungibility at all, it is saying to the recipient that they are entitled to our most 'valuable' noun (within the allowlisted IDs), whichever the claimant feels that is. I think the upside vs cost (which is hard to articulate since the token is a fully permissioned issuance) there is undeniable.

Conviction around cost/benefit permissionless swapping generally is not as high as some other things tho;

personally think it makes no sense to vote down a reasonable bid to design the token as a standalone prop. just dont see circumstance arising where we'd want to tell a scout winner 'you can have any of those nouns 400-1000 except N bc we're saving it for xyz'

Given that the initial props didn't pass, I don't know if retroactive compensation for v1 makes sense here. From that alone, have to vote no unfortunately, but appreciate the initiative and effort done by the team here.

On swapping I've sort of flipped my perspective and think it might be okay if permissionless. But I agree with 9999 that it's hard to figure out a way to reconcile all the subjective ways that different Nouns have value, beyond just ID.

Okay with swapping, as I see it if there is interest in swapping a Nouns it reinforces the point that Nouns are non fungible, people are seeking a specific trait/look, a different Noun. I don't see it much differently than an OTC swap. What i'm not okay with is the onchain process to get there, like 12 said it is not efficient. Would be open to retro fund the permissionless version, possibly with the fee mechanisms suggested as well. Also aggre with cone that the current ask is not proportional to what was delivered and its usage.

Firstly, thank you again to Paperclip Labs for choosing to build with Nouns.

As mentioned in my vwr for prop 453 and 454, I am against the DAO creating a Noun pool and swap mechanism.

Regarding this proposal specifically, a few things stand out.

Creating a DAO-approved token that is backed by “any Noun whatsoever” undermines the value of the Noun. We should not be equating a fungible token with a fungible Noun. The token or swap happening on a vending machine further cheapens the experience of getting a Noun.

Emphasis on low ID Nouns is a subjective measure of a Noun's value to the DAO. We guess it is an important piece of value, but it may turn out that any Noun ID under 2000 is "low". We reach for Noun ID because it is easily found onchain, but there are a number of offchain attributes which contribute to a Noun’s value such as coherence, artist, social signal, humor, historical ownership, etc. These should be considered in any swap mechanism. If we were to prioritize ID, it would make sense to consider these other attributes, which would necessitate a comprehensive Noun rating system for equitable swaps. Segmenting the pool into two groups turns one of groups into fungibles.

Lastly, the funding request of Noun 788 and $45,000 for the initial app seems disproportionate. While your efforts in building this prototype are commendable, the scope of the project and the ensuing proposals it generated seem mismatched to this request.

Can't reason a convincing counter argument to krel or noun12's vwrs, as well as many of the comments on prop 454 and 453

i agree with brennen re: a small fee for swapping high id -> low id

Useful tool for inviting new Nouns members in who may have art from a treasury Noun speak to them more. Strong +1 to Brennen’s suggestions

sent from voter.wtf

I am for this, but only if the dao can control the contract and it's parameters, including fee. I also believe the nouns ID should be a difference by the one being swapped. i.e. if you swap high id for low id you should pay a fee to nouns, the bigger the difference the larger the fee. However, giving people the ability to find their forever noun is a good idea.

Earlier this week, we launched the MVP version of NounSwap. It allows any Noun holders to create a prop to swap their Noun for a Noun from the treasury. Overall we received a lot of positive and constructive feedback. We've created this proposal to address the feedback and further enhance the NounSwap experience to drive the Nouns project forward. Here's what we plan to do:

We’re Bringing All Nouns Home ❤️. This proposal will return the 266 Nouns currently sitting in escrow back to the Nouns treasury.

Part 1: Improve the current version of NounSwap (v1):

Prop personalization: We're going to introduce the ability for proposers to share their personal motivations behind why they want to swap their Noun, accompanied by images of the Nouns involved for a richer narrative.

Prop fee: We will be adding an optional fee mechanism to help proposers “convince” the DAO to accept their swap. If the proposal passes, the fee will be sent to the Nouns treasury allowing the DAO to directly benefit from successful swaps.

Part 2: Permissionless Swaps (v2)
We heard that the community felt that creating a proposal for every swap could lead to prop spam/voter fatigue. So, we will be building permissionless swaps with governance-configurable parameters which include:

A fee switch: Governance can decide how much of a fee a swapper will need to pay. This will provide an additional revenue mechanism for the DAO.

Swap Exclusion: Governance will be able to determine which nouns will and will not be available for permissionless swaps. Nouns which cannot be swapped permissionlessly can still be obtained via a successful swap prop via the NounSwap v1 mechanism.

Part 3: Redemption Tokens
We want to improve the way the community distributes Nouns with a redemption token. Instead of the DAO giving out a specific Noun, they can give a redemption token, which can be redeemed for the Noun that truly resonates with the recipient. Imagine a vending-machine-like experience.

Benefits of NounSwap:

• 🔄 Evolving Tastes: People change, and so do preferences. NounSwap ensures your Noun aligns with your evolving style.
• 🌍 Community Engagement: More swaps mean increased interaction, strengthening the bonds within the Nouns community.
• 🚀 Overcoming FOMO and decision paralysis: New members need not hastily settle for a Noun from the auction, or wait months for their preferred Noun. NounSwap allows them to discover the perfect fit at their own pace.
• 🌐 Funds for DAO Treasury: Every swap will contribute a fee to the Noun treasury, fostering a sustainable and thriving Nouns ecosystem.

We believe, NounSwap is a win-win scenario for everyone. Noun holders have the opportunity to discover their 'forever Noun', enhancing overall satisfaction within the Noun ecosystem. Simultaneously, the treasury gains a new revenue stream, ensuring sustained growth and prosperity for the community.

A final comment on fungibility:
NounSwap's introduction of a swap fee ensures that Nouns remain distinctly non-fungible. The swapper's decision to exchange their Noun, coupled with the added fee, reflects a subjective valuation, emphasizing the individuality of each Noun. The voluntary nature of the process reinforces personal preferences, further distinguishing Nouns.

We hope to work closely with the Nouns community to ensure NounSwap will be highly valuable to the Nouns ecosystem. Please don't hesitate to leave feedback here, or reach out:

• X/Twitter: @PaperclipLabs
• Farcaster: @spencerp

first

"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.