from nounsfe:
For: 1 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 2

lunari: super fun coin and super fun ticker! multiple canonical fractionalizations is a tiny bit confusing, but I do like that you can participate (and delegate) without owning a full noun, as well as be able to redeem ANY noun from the protocol. I would love to see these teams keep building & making fun interactions with nouns :]

ashe: Could be a good idea, awesome that people who can't afford a full noun can engage with the proposals.

jesscas: confused on its benefits, not really understanding this, abstaining (+1 samscolari.eth)

Really excited to onboard a new builder. I would encourage a radical simplification of these many moving parts. An art-first governing Nouns edition (1155) seems like a step in the right direction.

Looking forward to more experimentation either way ⌐◨-◨

voting because i voted on the last one. unsure why nouns have to have a token .

This proposal is a result of much thought, is a reasonable cost, and has been openly discussed at length on the Nouncil weekly calls. Like the idea that the token is growing the amnt of people participating in nouns governance + can provide a clear and permissionless route to obtaining governance rights in the dao, and one day a noun.

"committed, zealous engagement of lilnouners, nouncillors" +1

not against this. seems like an alternate universe federation could have lived in. not sure why this needs to be considered a part of the protocol tho. i see it as a governance game using ⌐◧-◧ as branding.

i'm supportive of building this MINUS the integration into the nouns protocol

For: 0 | Against: 2 | Abstain: 0

+against name is not shareable or memeable. This proposal should have a request for quote from multiple providers, would love to see agora taking the lead on this and then enable this functionality to the ethereum community as a whole — @defijesus

+against Actually I was interested in the Meme Coin meta that went viral some time ago, maybe if $nouns or other memecoins that use cc0 Nouns were launched at that time it could attract a lot of attention. But if now or in the future I don't think it's worth it to create a native token erc-20 Nouns. — @0xishal

via @zeroweight

negatives first
am seeing a somewhat surprising/encouragingly tepid response overall for the fungible tokens. As i said before, I'm generally unsure about fungibilizing; another way to express my hesitation is: if people are willing to convert to fungible, it means they have appraised the non-fungible value of their Noun at 0. I think this is likely a big structural problem if it takes hold at scale, and skewers a major competitive advantage Nouns has intrinsically as an NFT-based network.
a second concern i have is if we explore % exit further this will complicate the picture for the fungible pool. For example, I think there is potential utility in setting some treasury nouns exit value to 0 and distributing them as pure governance. Clearly this requires some consideration in the context of either proposed erc-20.
These are major strikes against this prop, in addition to reg concerns mentioned by 41 & elsewhere.

Still
the vote IS fungible, and has value, and imo this is definitely something we want to distribute with higher granularity; the committed, zealous engagement of lilnouners, nouncillors etc give me conviction that there are a lot of competent, hungry governors out there that just need an onramp to participate. I think there is major upside to us and Ethereum generally in providing that access. Even without the erc-20, seamlessly functional/fair fractional NFT governance is more than worth the price of admission, and for that reason i end up heavily FOR

this prop is to develop contracts that can be used to drastically improve the condition of all nounish subdao governance, solving a major vulnerability that members of lil nouns, nouncil and sharkdao know all too well. Proportional representation over nouns votes is, imo, easily worth 10x the cost, just by itself.
We also get contracts facilitating flow of props from Nouns into the subdao, also an important unlock. These two features together, along with proposing & cross-chain execution (out of scope here but forthcoming), make subdao governance finally work. Worth 100x the cost, as a package, imo.

We also get granularity of Nouns nfts, ability to burn/recombine into different voting weights, collecting/sharing art as desired (imagine if sharkdao distributed 10000 swim shadys, or if we had 1111 slices of Noun 1111). It unlocks building digital identity at any price point, or simply enjoying generative Noun minting in a generous / open sandbox. While I am currently quite excited about this piece, my conviction is a bit less strong as to implementation than on the governance spec which i feel is probably pretty close to perfect. Definitely open to ideas/discussion there. For example, do we limit how small/large the fractions can be or how many overall (current thinking no), or add a fee switch so the protocol can generate revenue from the open-edition approach to Nouns minting (current thinking no).

On the regulatory side, it seems self-evident that if a Noun is not a security, then neither is a Noun with 0.5 vote instead of 1 vote.

We can table deploying the erc-20 and still get a significant amount of non-contentious functionality out of these new contracts. In this framing, the risk is limited to 14eth and the upside in acquiring the uncorrelated thought energy of N new long-term participants who are currently priced out is, while hard to quantify, probably a >1 multiple of our current market cap.

Stretching revotes to its limits here but lots of valuable opinions worth highlighting.

Im excited for a world where we can add erc20s to nouns and given the rich design space and permissionless nature of the dao i reckon its more a matter of 'when' than 'if'. But as a non-US citizen i dont have the same regulatory skin-in-the-game as some other voters and that is enough for me to tip my vote to Abstain. Its a cop out, but thats where i end up.

(For the record I voted For on prop 536, but had I voted today it would've been an Abstain, too.)

Failed to meet quorum so we are abstaining.

For: 0 | Against: 1 | Abstain: 0

Hey, TheNobleDev! Thanks for the proposal. As I mentioned in the $nouns token proposal, I'm not fully sold on the Nouns Fungible Token and still need further discussion to understand it better. If I do end up supporting it, I wouldn't have a problem with supporting multiple attempts to build it, as I highly value decentralization and believe it's healthy for the ecosystem. However, I'm voting against it here because:

❌ this proposal is confusing and lacks information about the proposer.

But I’d support it if:

✅ it was better structured, clearly explained the difference between $nouns and $⌐◨-◨, and properly introduced the proposer.

Please don’t take it personally; I just think we should focus on increasing the quality of proposals as their quantity will continue to grow. I suggest reworking it, discussing it with the community on X and the /nouns channel on Farcaster, and then putting it back onchain.

In addition to my arguments against 536. This seems like a quick reaction to that prop going up and not fully defined.

As in the other proposal, there's other work needed to be done before releasing this.
The amount of unknown unknowns seem possibly too high and I haven't seen yet enough effort to bring clarity to the whole fungible nouns.

+1 to all this

i do think the name should be changed because unicode makes it hard to search for people logistically. idk what a better name is, but that's not a dealbreaker here

In favor of expanding nouns into the masses
Don't agree about using ASCII art as the name

Very interesting. In favor of finding the most nounish way to funge the Nouns. This seems worthwhile exploring.

Similar to the $nouns prop, I'm not convinced that this is a good idea for Nouns and would like an opinion from the Foundation lawyers before any type of factionalization or incorporation of erc-20 to represent the NFT. I'm also still confused on the benefits of this approach.

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

Support for the development of the $⌐◧-◧ token is based on its promise to democratize access to Nouns governance, allowing broader community involvement at various investment levels. This token aims to enhance decentralized participation and governance within the Nouns ecosystem. The positive vote reflects a belief in the potential of $⌐◧-◧ to create a more inclusive and engaging community, reinforcing the foundational values of the Nouns project.

FOR - 18 VOTES

imwylin | "bold move by the economic majority"

borg00000 | "Ah $⌐◨-◨, good to see you here finally."

peterpandam | *"Sounds fun, will be a nice transparent way to purchase Nouns.

Love the idea of receiving $⌐◧-◧ for proposals, rounds, tips, etc."*

benbodhi | "Super interesting and something I’d love to see in action. It’s been a long time coming imo."

AGAINST - 9 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 2 VOTES

i’m supportive of this being explored in parallel to $nouns

if i understand correctly the main differences seem to be adding voting power and an ability to wrap any amount of the fungibles to get a “fractional” nft with its own art. so it’s an effort to add voting power and art back into the fungible mix and i think both of those ideas are fair and worth exploring

the verbs team does intend to add voting power to $nouns implementation but my understanding is that they think adding it after the nft governor would meaningfully reduce the complexity. but i totally understand the feeling that some have that voting power should be a day one item and thus we should explore an implementation that adds it from the get go (fwiw i don’t agree with the view that adding voting power strictly reduces the likelihood sec deems the fungible token a security but that’s a separate sub point)

i like the effort of trying to add some form of artwork that anyone with any amount of the fungible token can mint for themselves. i think this prop is saying that it would be the same artwork as the noun being deposited or generated randomly similarly to the auction settlement txn generation logic? that could work. but maybe another artwork that is appealing and nounish but still identifiably different might also be a good alternative. i don’t have the best takes here so defer to community artists.

in sum i’m more on the side that voting and art can be iteratively explored and added later on but i’m happy to see and fund another intuitive that seeks to support a version of both from day one. i also agree with the view of the proposer that multiple implementations of the nouns fungible token could co exist in not only the design phase but the deployed in production phase as well. as long as they are genuinely backed by nouns nfts i’m supportive of treating them mostly interchangeably and users can choose for themselves what form factor they prefer. a decentralized project isn’t as singularly streamlined in its execution compared to more centralized projects but that’s also where the resilience and parallel execution super powers come from so it’s just kind of something we live with and i’m fine if there’s some market confusion initially about how these fungible tokens are similar/different.

Let's get this second party started!

My views mostly align with this.

While I am supportive of experimentation with different fungible token models, this proposal feels way to similar to $nouns to be worth funding. There is nothing here that can't be built into or on top of $nouns and I'd rather see the community work together than fragmenting attention in this area.

am not comfortable pursuing a fungible token in the context of the current regulatory environment. would be open to revisiting this post US election, or perhaps thinking more carefully about the mechanism design to achieve analogous objectives without the added regulatory risk. i think dao members should think carefully about the implications of regulatory action against the project, as this would impact existing dao members, the daily auctions, and our interactions with potential partners and collaborators. we’ve worked hard to make the brand friendly, responsible, and approachable, both inside and outside the crypto space, and to put this at risk for the uncertain benefits of a fungible token is not a good risk / reward

I don’t think splitting attention between two tokens will better achieve the mission of expanding the network. As far as regulatory risk, I don’t see how this version is any less risky than $nouns. If the SEC wants to come after Nouns, they’ll do so regardless of whether or not the token has voting power. It also could just be added to $nouns in future contract upgrades.

Also think ASCII art is cool, but will just add friction in finding the token and having people join Nouns.

If I'm understanding the prop correctly, this is essentially the same as nouns fungible token, except you can vote with your holdings as well? I like how the voting logic is floored so it can't be too influential if few voters are active.

I don't really understand why this is legally more clear than the $NOUNS spec. It is just because being able to vote means the token has some utility and is no longer just a security with price exposure? If so, the prop should do a better job highlighting that. Nouns is a high profile project and it makes sense to do right by the law (even if the law is confusing).

Normally I don't really love the idea of funding two of the same project (this and $nouns from verbs) but I DO like the idea of funding protocol work that isn't only built by Verbs. The verbs team does amazing work, don't get me wrong, but I don't want it to feel like they are the only team that can contribute to core protocol. I understand that this proposal is not directly influencing the core protocol, but perhaps it could (seconding Seneca's feedback)

Non vote swaying comments:
I don't like the name $⌐◧-◧.
ASCII art is a fun but I always have to search for it then copy paste it and I don't want to have to copy paste the name of a token I care about.

$nouns ⌐◨-◨

I’m for funding the development of this, since new mechanisms to expand Nouns are worth pursuing. I’d flag that we should do our best to stage the launches to ensure that potential token holders aren’t confused by three potential tokens ($nouns, $nogs, and $⌐◧-◧).

It’s also worth mentioning that holders of this token may have a different level of sophisticated and understanding than holders of Nouns NFTs. We should be thoughtful about how that changes governance. That’s not a reason to be opposed, but a reason to proceed thoughtfully.

i’m FOR competing versions of what fungible nouns might look like. At a reasonable cost, it makes sense to support a well intentioned effort to explore the form factor.

That said, the wrapping modality where the ERC721 is used feels like a bit of a hack on top of the current contracts (compound governor / winner takes all). If (and this is a nuanced discussion to be had) we do want to pursue voting at the smallest proportions (eg 1/1m), we should consider baking into the protocol itself. This prob makes more sense to do post nouns governor deployment.

Also: very pro finding ways how to make the fungible as nounish as possible. Introducing art to the form without taking away the core features that makes the erc20 standard special would be an ideal state.

Super interesting and something I’d love to see in action. It’s been a long time coming imo.

Governance with fractionalized Nouns is a core feature we've needed since day 1. I think this is a reasonable take with reasonable costs. I also think we should encourage the development of multiple tokens, just as we want to incentivize multiple clients. Competition is good for the DAO.

I expect this to undergo both technical and game theory / tokenomic audits as well.