Transaction Details
Transaction Hash:
0x91
3c1fed8c4dba6cdcdee374327ab140289201857f5e4161d55fd307b5c0
6cb7
Status:
Success
Block:
19870608
Finalized
Timestamp:
2024-05-14 20:28:47 +0000 UTC
From:
0xA86882…079E63
krel.eth
Interacted With:
Contract
- Transfer 0.00100158 ETH From 0x6f3E62…79223d To krel.eth
Value:
0 ETH
0.00 ETH
Transaction Fee:
0.00167744 ETH
0.00 ETH
Effective Gas Price:
6.18400638 GWei
Execution Stats:
Used
271256
out of
298200
Gas
(91%)
Gas Fees:
Base Block Fee:
6.16288541 GWei
|
Max Overall Fee:
6.42008475 GWei
|
Max Priority Fee:
0.02112096 GWei
Attributes:
Txn Type: 2 (EIP-1559)
Nonce: 920
Block Position: 87
Call Data:
Address:
Name:
VoteCast(address indexed voter, uint256 proposalId, uint8 support, uint256 votes, string reason)
Topics:
| 0 | 0xb8e138887d0aa13bab447e82de9d5c1777041ecd21ca36ba824ff1e6c07ddda4 |
|---|---|
| 1 | 0x000000000000000000000000a86882277e69fbf0a51805cdc8b0a3a113079e63 |
Data (Decoded):
| proposalId | uint256 |
537
|
|---|---|---|
| reason | string |
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.)
+1
> 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.
+1
> 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 $⌐◧-◧.
> ASCII art is a fun but I always have to search for it then copy paste it and I don't want to have to copy paste the name of a token I care about.
+1
> I’m for funding the development of this, since new mechanisms to expand Nouns are worth pursuing. I’d flag that we should do our best to stage the launches to ensure that potential token holders aren’t confused by three potential tokens ($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.
+1
> 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
+1
> 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.
|
| support | uint8 |
2
|
| voter | address | |
| votes | uint256 |
3
|
Data (Hex):
| Type Trace Address | From | To | Value | Gas Limit |
|---|