For: 0 | Against: 6 | Abstain: 1

+abstain — @symbiotech.eth

+against triggers protection mode — @krel

+against any threshold biases against small holders and add drain volatility; nothing else matters — @w-g

+against — negates the point of fork. No honest minority protection — @frog

+against — @bixbite

I'm +against preventing forks in general, don't like the arb but I do like the nouns returning to dao 🤷‍♂️ — @pip

the only people bidding the auction are anonymous binance funded wallets and Wag +against removing minority protection and forcing arbers to stay in the DAO. let them go, and maybe let’s do and fund things that actually inspire people to want to join rather than extract liquidity either directly or through Rounds — @wylin

via @zeroweight

Forks keep the DAO productive by giving an option to exit to members who don’t want to participate. I would be in favor of lowering the fork threshold so that forks happen sooner. I’m not in favor of raising it, especially to 51% which makes minority forks impossible.

Insert Ryan Reynolds “But why?” gif here

It simply makes no sense. It's exactly the opposite of why the mechanism was built in the first place.

This. Not sure how this prop got onchain.

no thankss....

Missed this poll in Nouncil during a busy week and was surprised to see this onchain. I don’t personally see the need to raise the threshold and effectively turn off the fork right now. Generally think we should probably stop tinkering with levers for the sake of it, and focus on the real solution to getting rid of the arb (raising the meme value of nouns and actually getting rid of the arb.)

For: 0 | Against: 4 | Abstain: 0

Against — 0xmonografia

feels unnecessary to raise. i think the feeling is that like an additional fork might be imminent and that we should avoid it by raising the threshold?

if that's the case i almost want to lower the threshold to let those arbers out. only rationale i agree with for raising fork threshold is if we think it can deter arbers but if we already think we have close to 30% of circulating supply with us as arbers then we'd rather not force them to stay by blocking their exit.

also 51% almost nukes the point of this mechanism as a minority protection mechanism in the first place. even if we raise i wouldn't ever raise it over 51% b/c then like what's the point? the economic majority doens't need to fork b/c they have control over dao votes anyways.

say more frens

I believe we should remove the fork entirely but would like to see the proposed research in prop 528 play out and find the right approach for this.

With a decentralized voter body it's important for proposals to provide context and justifications that don't rely on a priori knowledge. I welcome more parameter config proposals but there must be at least an attempt to justify the change.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/531/votes

FOR 43 VOTES

AGAINST 73 VOTES

0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "Raising the fork threshold could trap smaller holders if they feel marginalized, reducing the DAO's inclusiveness and dynamism."

ABSTAINS 0 VOTES

The Nouncil has spoken.

We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord https://discord.gg/fdjJpMeV6K. The calls are public and all are welcome!

You can find previous call recordings here: https://nouncil.notion.site/30328df718424f17a623859018497fc2?v=806b5234a2a34b619c3d5028bcd879f0&pvs=4

This proposal was created based on a Nouncil poll (any nouncillor can create polls) on whether Nouncil should submit a prop to increase the threshold for forking to 51%. That poll passed and there was no actual written proposal for more context. Everyone in Nouncil had a chance to write a proposal, but no one did, so the prop was created with the information at hand simply because the poll to do so was in favour.

When it came to the actual vote on the proposal, Nouncil landed on a majority against.

FOR - 9 VOTES

AGAINST - 21 VOTES

imwylin | *"the spirit of the forking mechanism is as a minority protection mechanism. raising the threshold to 51% takes away the only protection the minority has, and lines the DAO up for another nasty spat with a block of No voting arbitragers.

while it is unfortunate that the DAOs smart contracts create an arbitrage opportunity, a better means to rectify the situation, (unless and until the v3 leak is plugged,) is for the Nounish ecosystem to put forward high quality props and spend down the arbitrage

whether the economic majority that controls the culture of Nouns will allow those props to pass is it’s own question. yet, better to attempt a spend down by funding quality props than forcefully locking people into the DAO who don’t want to be here. i’ll take a 51% threshold over literally burning the eth though"*

borg00000 | "More forks = more Nouns for the DAO, why wouldn't we want to collect more of the best art in the game"

benbodhi | "I originally voted FOR in the Nouncil poll to put this prop onchain as it's a parameter that can be changed again if necessary and I was curious about the wider opinion/perspective on the threshold. My initial reaction to the poll was that it should be difficult to fork. However, after more thought, and for the actual vote on the proposal, I think it's fine as is or even a lower threshold would be fine. If we look at honest minority forking, then higher threshold is obviously not good. I think the simplest view of why anyone might support this is just to protect the treasury from being exploited at all. But it isn't that simple. This threshold change is a technicality that's not exciting to me either way and I hope to spend more time focused on the more fun things in nouns. I also think proposals like this could and should have more context. I believe Nouncil will address this for any future proposals of this nature."

ABSTAINS - 11 VOTES

There's a lot to said about this prop – but first and foremost, regardless of the ask, the format, depth and simply the lack of care are not acceptable. And, weird.

very significant parameter change without any context. open to evolving these settings, but need to be thoughtful and methodical.

Bad, weird prop.

This, and the learnings we get from Prop 528

+1, surprisingly little context for such a hard to understand concept. Props like this are opportunities to educate newcomers like me on what this proposed change means and pros and cons of executing it. Nouncil should lead by example!

https://youtu.be/A6zDPoGi6ls?si=GvyDDzKongVgQLqO&t=635

I originally voted FOR in the Nouncil poll to put this prop onchain as it's a parameter that can be changed again if necessary and I was curious about the wider opinion/perspective on the threshold. My initial reaction to the poll was that it should be difficult to fork.

However, after more thought, and for the actual vote on the proposal, I think it's fine as is or even a lower threshold would be fine. If we look at honest minority forking, then higher threshold is obviously not good. I think the simplest view of why anyone might support this is just to protect the treasury from being exploited at all. But it isn't that simple.

This threshold change is a technicality that's not exciting to me either way and I hope to spend more time focused on the more fun things in nouns.

I also think proposals like this could and should have more context. I believe Nouncil will address this for any future proposals of this nature.

optimistic that $nouns will pull auction prices above book value and want to wait on changing any fork mechanics until we can evaluate its impact

bad look on proposers to propose such a change to the fork threshold without any context. +1 to krel.

was told offchain that 'word on the street' is i wanted this/ pretty wild given it's antithetical to all my values/politics in nouns. it's true that it may serve my personal short-term governance interests and that i view those interests as strongly aligned with nouns

• however -
  exit rights imo, even under a flawed and inequitable design, are integrally important to positive sum world-building . they are as critical as crypto tenets such as 'freedom to transact,' 'right to privacy,' etc

any proposal that rolls them back should be viewed with hostility imo. i recognize it may be hard to stomach - no one in nouns has poured a fraction of the amount of sweat as i have into correcting this dynamic (and i believe the solution is on the way)- but in reality 0 threshold is by far the best option here. It keeps the dao maximally free from ongoing anon/arber presence (or absence) in governance and keeps the threat of progressive capture at a minimum. it also game-theoretically minimizes the overall amount of drain, as well as the volatility of drain (drain under higher thresholds is harder to predict) .

My cost basis to build my current Noun position under 0 threshold would have been close to 2x higher.

even with the discount, i think we can count on our hands the # of new engaged nouners we've onboarded at auction.

what else is there to say?

Proposing to change important params in this plain and faceless manner should be considered an attack on the dao. Voting against based on that.