I like reading the reasoning for wanting to swap your noun.

For: 5 | Against: 1 | Abstain: 0

+against would vote for if the swap price curve was removed entirely — @brettdrawsstuff

+for let the people swap 😊 — @frog

+for — @bixbite

+for — @yes2crypto.eth

+for — @fattybuthappy

+for people want to swap and get their forever noun. the contract is very flexible and supports both approving all OR a subset of treasury nouns for swapping without moving them to a new address (which would break the quorum calculations) — @datadanne.eth

from /nounsfe:
For: 0 | Against: 2 | Abstain: 4

tori: Abstain, maybe it is like weird of me but I feel like if you do not want your noun then you should try to sell it and buy a new one instead of swapping. Maybe a marketplace to sell nouns would be better. I think trading creates a very uncomfortable environment that can lead to sketchy scenarios we would just like to avoid. Also I do not mind reading the swap votes because we kind of got into nouns to be apart of the community and that means voting on proposals and interacting. if we do not want to vote on something then we have the option not to, but I like being able to have the option.

katalyyst: abstain, i think this is a very low price for such an initiative, but i'm just unsure about noun swapping in general. feels like a big change for the DAO that I'm not fully ready to support.

onter: +1 katalyyst

jesscas: Abstain, I haven't really felt the fatigue that comes with swap props, I feel like they're actually fairly digestible and straightforward, does not contribute to the fatigue. +1 tori

lunari: against, +1 jesscas. very awesome contract though! would love to see this be integrated in other DAO's or be tweaked with the feedback. papercliplabs is a great team :] also big +1 with joaoborges.eth, I'd love to see more interesting swap proposals, as it adds story/lore and really makes a connection between the art, token, and address. it would be interesting to see a way to curate those swap proposals a bit more.

@playdna_ - A collective of individuals collaborating on a mission to make Nouns playable.

PlayDNA is FOR with a 3-1 vote result. See below for our members' votes with reasons:

FOR

TheBower.eth: Personally I'm a fan of being able to swap nouns with the treasury. In my view it objectively doesn't make nouns fungible, it in fact incentivizes the opposite, as each noun is different and people have different personal preferences of style.
Also support permissionless swapping, much better than going through a vote every time.

eusoujp.eth: I'm still not sure if letting any Noun from the treasury be swapped is what we as a community want, but considering the contract "is a public good that can be deployed by any DAO," I think we definitely should fund the audit!

FabValle.eth: I like the idea of swapping Nouns, it can be a fun way to reward the owners - since they already bough a Noun and just want to have fun with a different one.

AGAINST

joaoborges.eth: +1 @stripymofo.eth
“I would prefer to see swap proposals that have a greater and more detailed reason why a swap is needed, versus a temple creation from nounswap, a style of awarding a swap would allow us to see and appreciate the action and contributions of people requesting a swap.”

I think permissionless swaps is something worth pursuing, and I find this implementation interesting. I'm in favor of an audit.

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 a link to previous call recordings in our Discord "links" channel.

Nouncil has decided against this proposal, with 8 votes for, 18 against, and 7 abstentions. While there was support for the concept of permissionless swaps, concerns were raised about the overall implementation. Some members felt that the idea of swapping treasury Nouns was not compelling and questioned the necessity of the proposed changes. The configuration of the fee structure and the timelock period were noted, but ultimately, the proposal did not gain sufficient support.

FOR - 8 VOTES

AGAINST - 18 VOTES

borg00000 | "Swapping treasury nouns doesn't excite me personally. If there is appetite from the dao then why don't they send treasury nouns to $nouns contract which already allows for this (I don't think people want that) and I don't like this idea of just swapping with any treasury noun, makes no sense to me though, these things are non-fungible."

brettdrawsstuff | "for permissionless swaps, against added fees"

benbodhi | "I like the idea of permissionless swaps and the pricing curve is interesting, but I don't think we should expose the whole treasury of nouns to this.
I think I'd rather see a contract the DAO deploys hold a bunch of nouns approved by the DAO to be swapped permissionlessly, so the DAO has some of the best ones, and lower IDs for more choice in how those ones would be distributed.I also haven't found the one off proposals that annoying since they are few and far between. But ultimately, I do think a pool for permissionless swapping would be rad, just not the whole treasury.This contract would be dope for other DAOs though!"

ABSTAINS - 7 VOTES

I like funding audits.

worth experimenting with and doing a trial run to see if we can learn something new. really appreciate your contributions so far to nouns!

This is tough bc i really like Paperclips continued efforts to make headway in the swap space but im not yet convinced this is a good design.

Would vote against the dao putting all nouns (esp low id) into this contract so voting against here too.

I'm voting FOR, because the team has already developed a first iteration of the concept and the tooling.

When will we use it?
For how long will we use it?
How will we use it?
Will we use it?

those are all separate conceptual conversations that are in demand to be addressed, however not part of this proposal.

Resharing some vwrs because there are aspects and thought starters that I find interesting to consider. And, I recall Brett casted or commented somewhere "1 Noun = 1 Vote = 1 Noun", which I too find an important framing to consider when assessing the full(?) picture.

To me, it sounds like we're close to having all tooling available to make people happy with their forever noun, which requires intentional orchestration(s?) of campaigns that activate different tools at different times across the seasons.

Anyways, let's get the existing tooling audited.

Did a quick overview, looks good to me. Nice job on tests. The audit will go the extra mile for security.

Let me know if are struggling to find an audit for the cost, I'd be down to be another pair of eyes.

One initial though: is the curve fixed when ageDiff low? Can't you just keep swapping down (e.g. 999 -> 989 -> 980) to avoid the premium?

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/581/votes

FOR 166 VOTES

0x65A3...1D63 | *"people want to swap. We can let them swap via proposals (annoying, cost gas, cost attention) or we can let them do it for free.

The cost here is extremely low relative to other props"*

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAIN 0 VOTES

One of my favorite nounish teams.

Nouns are non-fungible so i cant personally get behind this idea (also think it could kind of ruin the auction like the bagpipe noun said). Nouns holding all these NFTs imo is great, and individual proposals to request / swap one are interesting and add lore.

Nouns has 561 Noun NFTs
Yuga Labs has 423 CryptoPunks

Nobody seems to be campaigning for Yuga Labs to burn and/or rapidly distribute their CryptoPunks. I see no real merit to making them instantly swappable.

• well scoped
• well budgeted
• reduces voter fatigue
• makes noun holders happier
• adds a revenue stream
• great team

I like the idea of permissionless swaps and the pricing curve is interesting, but I don't think we should expose the whole treasury of nouns to this.
I think I'd rather see a contract the DAO deploys hold a bunch of nouns approved by the DAO to be swapped permissionlessly, so the DAO has some of the best ones, and lower IDs for more choice in how those ones would be distributed.

I also haven't found the one off proposals that annoying since they are few and far between. But ultimately, I do think a pool for permissionless swapping would be rad, just not the whole treasury.

This contract would be dope for other DAOs though!

+1

I think this is a solid idea on all accounts. We have the following:
a) an easier way for individuals to find their "forever noun", that is also less fatiguing for voters and less awkward for proposers.
b) a new revenue stream for the DAO

Both would benefit the DAO, thanks to the team for the work here.

NounSwap Prop 457 was already defeated and Noun Id pricing isn’t a meaningful enough mechanic to revisit (see my vwr on the topic). Nouns in the treasury should not become a permissionless pool.

I’ve enjoyed reading individual Noun swap props. They would be less “fatiguing” if the boilerplate was removed, but otherwise have served as an excellent introduction to the Nouner in their own words.
Presenting oneself to a large group, onchain, is bold and insightful. Compared to $nouns permissionless pool swaps, which lack any personality, swap props are becoming a form of community building.

The question to me is: do we want to vote on proposals every time someone wants a swap or should we simply allow them to swap for their forever noun?

For me it's an easy choice. You should be able to get whatever noun speaks to you must without having to convince everyone else that you "deserve it". Let people do what they want. Let the people swap.

While I appreciate Spencer and Cole's work, for me, the Dao offers many tools to mint a noun that you desire. I think allowing permissionless swapping takes away from the auction demand. I would prefer to see swap proposals that have a greater and more detailed reason why a swap is needed, versus a temple creation from nounswap, a style of awarding a swap would allow us to see and appreciate the action and contributions of people requesting a swap. This should help slow down requests as we learn what is expected to be passed in a Dao vote . This notion that the auction can be a window to grab whatever you like feels bad to me.

love this.

P.S. I just confirmed that nounswap.wtf works out of the box via the iframe fidget on nounspace.

check it out on my space:
https://www.nounspace.com/s/willywonka.eth

got free nOGs for y'all if you're interested, my DC's are open!

here's our discord too: https://discord.gg/6BQPU5ep

Strong yes, thank you papercliplabs.eth for building this! <3

i'm in favor of letting nouns holders swap for their preferred noun from the treasury. it's a cool feature that also benefits the floor + auction prices for otherwise less appealing nouns. also very much in favor of removing the governance burden for both proposers and voters.

gut reaction is that 0.1 ETH seems like a good fee to set for deployment.