Seems off to tie a reserve to bv when bv is not relevant anymore… unless that is the plan, to preserve current token values based on treasury size and eventually take over the DAO to change the “rules” and allow forking again.
But tin hat off, I think there’s no point in setting a reserve. Let the market decide what a noun is worth. If we set a reserve/floor like this, I think we just see auctions with no bids burning new nouns.

NOUNs is no question an exclusive / price gated DAO but a 3ETH floor feels detached from the price range the daily auctions have been closing around. Even though I am voting 'against' I would be open to a price floor that is amendable and closer to the current closing prices ⌐◨-◨

I'd rather the market decide instead of a prop.

sus

One noun auctioned off everyday forever?

One noun erryday forever! isn't that the motto?

FOR 24 VOTES

chompix.eth | *"Why not 🍿
nuthead.app

Thx bai"*

AGAINST 296 VOTES

bixbite.eth

mikegood.eth

Fattybuthappy

zaal.eth

civilmonkey.eth

ABSTAIN 8 VOTES

pipe da snowman | "p"

i like accessible nouns ⌐◨-◨

If there is going to be a floor price it should be closer to the current average auction price, not 6X that value. I also think setting the floor price that high destroys our ability to try and onboard the masses and decentralize governance. Also I love the point that was made that the price should continue to decline because the voting weight of the associated token is also diluted.

Against - Wins

FOR - 5 VOTES

willyfox | "why is everyone voting against? personally open to the experiment. would be nice to see some success metrics attached to this though. what are the goals of this and how will we measure its success/failure?"

borg00000 | "Fafo, think this wont work though but open to be proven wrong"

gramajo | *"I think 3eth might be too high, we still need velocity of sales. But not against a floor

-Gramajo"*

AGAINST - 17 VOTES

gnericvibes | "I need to buy a Noun first Yoo 😂"

ABSTAINS - 2 VOTES

3ETH might work on paper depending on how you look at the stats (if I squint really really hard...), but re ethos, ebbs/flows of markets, alignment... setting a floor at 3ETH doesn't sit well with me any way I try and reconcile it.

One noun for everyone, some day

setting an artificial floor at breakeven movement's average buy-in price feels like it undermines the natural governance dilution that makes nouns accessible. market forces should determine entry cost, not attempts to preserve existing holders' influence. open systems thrive when barriers to participation are low, not when we artificially inflate them to protect early positions.

yolo

not clear how this emphasizes noc

Fat fingered meant to vote against💀

Dilution feels a natural part of culture and since duna protects extraction of bv don’t feel need to put reserve as would not like to burn nice pieces like in gnars and rather have them be adopted by people attaching themselves to them

I agree with some of the comments here for several reasons. I believe in the DAO being open to anyone who can participate in the auction. Raising the cost of entry artificially feels exclusionary. The market should continue to dictate the value of membership. If necessary, I would vote for a more calculated approach like what Gramajo has described.

I agree with some of the comments here for several reasons. I believe in the DAO being open to anyone who can participate in the auction. Raising the cost of entry artificially feels exclusionary. The market should continue to dictate the value of membership. If necessary, I would vote for a more calculated approach like what Gramajo has described.

This feels like an attack on Nouns governance in an attempt to preserve Breakeven Movement's average buy-in by preventing others from joining and diluting their power at a lower cost.

Not against a reserve at all, but we’re literally right on the doorstep of founder rewards ending at #1820 feels like we should just push past that first before switching things up