el4d.eth

Another important point re:prop 708 from @davidbr

Prop 708 (auction streams) is serving as a forcing function for the DAO to discuss whether it needs/wants minority protection at all. Any kind of minority protection design will have some downsides, and will introduce some liquidity uncertainty (because that's the point in a malicious majority scenario). For anyone who sees value in minority protection, and in the mechanism being DUNA-compliant, this proposal should make sense and be net positive. For those who don't share this view, makes sense to be against.

gm, sharing another verbs propdate: https://www.updates.wtf/prop/458

Just want to emphasize in my POV, minority protection is meant to minimize the "honeypot" risk of the tresury attracting a majority attack that either is able to drain it or hold the DAO hostage. Refund/exit deters attackers, and in the case of an attack minimizes their potential gain. It also helps resolve deep disagreements and various forms of polarization. I don't believe it's healthy for long term survival to be without such a mechanism. Of course I could be wrong!

Followup on the proposed refund mechanism (link to our original post in a cast below) We're sharing a draft technical spec, and welcoming feedback: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hck21Nr1_BT3IUdjG8Sun9_cXP--mru8--lTNmuftsA/edit?usp=sharing

happy nouniversary ⌐◨-◨

Important notice for all noun owners and delegates We were recently approached by 0xkasper from @hexens, a white hat security team, who found a new attack vector based on a vulnerability we were aware of in the Nouns token contract. Nouns tech grants pod has initiated a bounty payment of 30K USDC to the team. TLDR * Who’s at risk? Noun owners delegating to EOA accounts (not smart contract accounts). * What’s the damage? Noun NFTs can become non-transferrable with no voting power. * How likely is it to happen? The probability is low if you trust your delegates and their wallet security setup; otherwise please consider changing your delegation immediately. More info in this post: https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/TP917T6vm6gXuVAxbQ34ZCn7dNiHabu3UW-ninwalVc

Round reward fixed thanks to @seneca Claim below! https://rounds.wtf/nouns-protocol/nouns-protocol-summer-24-round-1-1

Hey everyone, wanted to say more words on the protocol round. We are sorry for the rugging feeling, that was definitely not our intention. Our intention in the change was to save funds for future rounds, thinking that's best for the community. We see it was a mistake and looking into reverting it back.

Hey @frog and everyone else who participated We had a high intention for this round Ended up not having enough time to dedicate to it We feel like there wasn't enough depth to merit the original reward Prefer to save the ETH for future rounds when we can be more on it Sorry for the mess!

Gm, tell all your protocol friends about /nouns-protocol summer 🌅

Nouns Governor design challenge We found a bad attack vector, and don't love any of the mitigations. Please read and help us be smarter! (rounds.wtf starts tomorrow morning) https://mirror.xyz/verbsteam.eth/gnTdSqqiZC7OmqL8Dix-hEek5Sim1abC1BsZNm9_h-s

Join us! We're starting Noun Protocol Summer over on our channel. Please tell all your relevant friends!

Nouns Protocol Summer is starting tomorrow morning. Let's get the Nounish big brains thinking about the protocol: https://rounds.wtf/nouns-protocol/nouns-protocol-summer-24-round-1-1

A verbs propdate: https://www.updates.wtf/update/458-2 cc @davidbr

This is client incentives doing its thing before it's even activated :) The activation prop is coming soon..

Feature request: In the proposals view on mobile, I wish I could see directly in the list view the quorum for each proposal. E.g. maybe the for votes label could be something like 38/64 (64 being quorum) Wdyt @krel?