In almost all crypto forks, a fork takes into account the current state of the protocol or DAO. You fork with full knowledge of which assets are where, and the decision to fork is made despite some disagreements about the current state. It is then the responsibility of the fork to modify the forked state as they see fit.

Moving assets around to accommodate a fork would be highly unusual. I am strongly opposed to this. Sending the message that forks will be accommodated for maximal value sets a bad precedent and opens Nouns up to slow-burn governance proposals that attempt to move assets to the most forkable locations. In the long term, this will hinder the day to day operations of the DAO and lead to distraction that is similar to the treasury management proposals.

sent from voter.wtf

I think funds are better spent building Nouns up into the best chaotic good spreading, noggles wearing, creativity maxing decentralized studio it can be.

Not particularly compelling

sent from voter.wtf

FOR - 3 VOTES

kwikgamedev | "Lowering payments to builders is what Nouns does best. I say go for it."

AGAINST - 41 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 4 VOTES

(noun40 voting via agora)

no need to frame this as petty imo. if an honest minority was forking they too would be engaging in similar behavior trying to divvy up every last dao controlled asset possible.

I'm voting in favor b/c I don't think this hinders the dao's activity meaningfully (it might delay a prop builder from receiving USDC immediately if they ask for more than $200k; they will be registered a debt while the tokenbuyer contract executes the trade, but nothing more than that) and I don't think this is against the spirit of what the fork is meant to accomplish.

as an aside, if anyone is curious about Token Buyer, they should checkout the github readme (it's so cool we have stuff like this! so useful. remember the old days when each prop builder had to do the usd conversion themselves and everyone added a "volatility buffer"? those days were bad. thank you verbs team!): https://github.com/nounsDAO/token-buyer/

appears to serve no utility to the DAO other than unnecessarily increase the treasury

not enough context to make an informed vote

A waste of the DAO's time and energy

vote on behalf owner

sent from voter.wtf

Going to abstain from this proposal.

I do not think as a delegate that I am qualified to voice my opinion on this proposal.

sent from voter.wtf

reVoteWithReason from ccarella.eth

We should not set a precedent of entertaining the threat of a fork in proposals nor should such a threat be a reason to rearrange assets.

Not to mention wasting the time and governance energy of the entire DAO for what amounts to maybe $1000 of extra arb profit per noun for those planning to fork.

sent from voter.wtf

We should not set a precedent of entertaining the threat of a fork in proposals nor should such a threat be a reason to rearrange assets.

sent from voter.wtf

the design philosophy of the fork was to avoid exit penalties. This proposal should have been submitted after fork upgrade to avoid interfering with DAO operation, but it also should have moved 100% of tokenpayer ETH and USDC to the treasury.

Voting in favor as an intermediate step regardless

Original design by verbs team apparently

sent from voter.wtf

Totally unimportant imo.

sent from voter.wtf