The exit mechanic already functions through secondary sales, which are occurring almost daily.

The fork threshold is currently at 100%. Ragequit was undeniably a mistake and can no longer happen. Any external attacks can be vetoed. So what are we doing here?

Ideas like this feel like a significant waste of time and only introduce new attack vectors that this proposal fails to address.

It seems that the core consensus protocol of Nouns DAO has undergone several major changes in a relatively short period of time, which creates significant uncertainty for long-term investors. I hope to see a more stable framework.

I am generally not in favor of introducing an additional exit option when secondary market exists. However, if this change is necessary to comply with DUNA requirements and presents the only viable solution, I will vote in favor.

Perhaps this isn't feasible, but if 80% of the auction revenue is locked, wouldn't it be desirable to "somehow" lock it as some type of ETH stacking? it doesn't make sense to me to just lock it in an escrow and let it sit there.

Personally, I would appreciate establishing a correlation between the amount streamed and the voting weight. Otherwise "streamed" Nouns votes hold greater weight than non-streamed Nouns, because of the option to cancel the streams which creates leverage I'm not entirely sure we want to inject this into our governance culture.

Additionally, I don't follow why after 1 year only 50% should be streamed. The DAO sells NFTs through the daily auction for member acquisition and to generate revenue. A buyer (not attacker) buys the NFT for at least one out of two motives: inject funds into the DAO and/or purchase a vote. If the vote is not weighted based on the amount streamed, there is good reasoning for the DAO to request to get to 100% streamed as soon as possible.

I'd recommend the stream to be concluded within a season, one year. I'm keen to further elaborate to make my case on this timeframe. It's mainly rooted in governance retention, community engagement and active self-immersion in the ecosystem.

agree mostly with all the opinions shared here so far.. some of the thoughts in the back of my mind;

• unsure about allowing exit in general. There is a secondary market for that.

• not sure we should keep the nouns after exit, vs burn.

• how does a stream / canceling a stream like this work tax-wise for nouns / auction winner if we ever reach non-profit status?

I am generally not in favor of introducing an additional exit option when secondary market exists. However, if this change is necessary to comply with DUNA requirements and presents the only viable solution, I will vote in favor.

Perhaps this isn't feasible, but if 80% of the auction revenue is locked, wouldn't it be desirable to "somehow" lock it as some type of ETH stacking? it doesn't make sense to me to just lock it in an escrow and let it sit there.

Personally, I would appreciate establishing a correlation between the amount streamed and the voting weight. Otherwise "streamed" Nouns votes hold greater weight than non-streamed Nouns, because of the option to cancel the streams which creates leverage I'm not entirely sure we want to inject this into our governance culture.

Additionally, I don't follow why after 1 year only 50% should be streamed. The DAO sells NFTs through the daily auction for member acquisition and to generate revenue. A buyer (not attacker) buys the NFT for at least one out of two motives: inject funds into the DAO and/or purchase a vote. If the vote is not weighted based on the amount streamed, there is good reasoning for the DAO to request to get to 100% streamed as soon as possible.

I'd recommend the stream to be concluded within a season, one year. I'm keen to further elaborate to make my case on this timeframe. It's mainly rooted in governance retention, community engagement and active self-immersion in the ecosystem.

The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop.

As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection)

Against

agree mostly with all the opinions shared here so far.. some of the thoughts in the back of my mind;

• unsure about allowing exit in general. There is a secondary market for that.

• not sure we should keep the nouns after exit, vs burn.

• how does a stream / canceling a stream like this work tax-wise for nouns / auction winner if we ever reach non-profit status?

The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop.

As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection)

Against

In favor of complying with DUNA, not in favor of minority protection via exit.

The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop.

As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection)

Against

The exit mechanic already functions through secondary sales, which are occurring almost daily.

The fork threshold is currently at 100%. Ragequit was undeniably a mistake and can no longer happen. Any external attacks can be vetoed. So what are we doing here?

Ideas like this feel like a significant waste of time and only introduce new attack vectors that this proposal fails to address.

The dao showed it doesn’t honestly care about minority protection by refusing to lower fork threshold before duna prop.

As such, there’s no point in voting through this streaming change which is materially worse for the dao and only offers in return something we’ve seen few honestly care for (minority protection)

Against

The exit mechanic already functions through secondary sales, which are occurring almost daily.

The fork threshold is currently at 100%. Ragequit was undeniably a mistake and can no longer happen. Any external attacks can be vetoed. So what are we doing here?

Ideas like this feel like a significant waste of time and only introduce new attack vectors that this proposal fails to address.

Ive never been a strong proponent of this design (on the contrary been strongly against it in the past) but all-in-all i think this is a fine feature and net-positive compared to having no exit/refund mech.

Thanks david/elad for all the hard work on this!

Ive never been a strong proponent of this design (on the contrary been strongly against it in the past) but all-in-all i think this is a fine feature and net-positive compared to having no exit/refund mech.

Thanks david/elad for all the hard work on this!