To future possibilities.

Would likely only vote for future swaps if they come with a more personalized reason as this feels like a missed opportunity to build out some great Wizardo lore.

FOR x 🥌 ↳ pipegood.eth

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

Wizardo moves fast. Perfect candidate for a bitnoun.

FOR - 28 VOTES

benbodhi | "The old switcharoo"

AGAINST - 5 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 8 VOTES

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/453/votes FOR 27 VOTES AGAINST 0 VOTES ABSTAINS 76 VOTES 0x63aa1670aBAF10b93a8fD9804eA304641Ec8aCE8 | "Until the implementation of autonomous voting for off-chain props, I vote abstain on Nouns props. " 0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "I'll only vote on proposals that require explanations once the proposer attends our weekly calls to explain them."

frownish

I can't come up with a good reason to deny someone the Noun they want that is sitting unused in the Treasury. Positive sum all the way down. Give Wizardo the Wizard. Seems like a no brainer and the way we should be treating each other as humans.

(noun40 voting via agora)

I don't think allowing ppl to pick a noun from our treasury that they like makes nouns fungible!

I agree with three issues with the current implementation but they all feel workable (and are noted as planned improvements in v2 according to prop 457):

• swaps shouldn't create props (voting fatigue is real). we should vote on gifting nouns but not on swaps or redemptions.

• swaps shouldn't be free: i would likely be comfortable with a 5% ish fee so that ppl don't take it too lightly (this is a configurable param in v2 plans)

• swaps shouldn't be for all nouns in treasury: let's leave the lower id ones off the table (I'd be supportive of only exposing later half of our treasury nouns).

but if the swaps don't create voting props, has a fee applied, and can't touch half of the lower ID nouns in treasury, then I feel like this is something we should be excited about.

why? well, it allows to direct more of the organic forever noun buying energy to the current auction. yes, it makes the currently sold noun a bit more of a redemption token but A) it's still available for someone else to swap for as their forever noun in the future, B) if in the current auction someone really wants the noun they can outbid the buyers that are trying to buy the noun to swap for another noun so doesn't block that intention either (just makes it more expensive to win the auction b/c more competition).

ultimately, i think the net effect is not that nouns become more fungible but rather that we make choosing forever nouns for ppl easier and at the same time increase the present day auction price by having the person that wants the present noun compete with everyone that wants one of the treasury nouns available (above the noun ID that we exclude). that feels really good to me! one of the core things we need right now is to induce more present day auction demand from organic buyers. ppl that want one of the treasury nouns while willing to pay (let's say) a 5% fee almost explicitly is a non arber an is an organic nouns art enjoyoor b/c if they are an arber then all nouns are fungible to them why pay a fee to swap for a treasury noun? so like ironically ppl that pay a fee to swap for a treasury noun are almost demonstrating onchain that they don't see nouns as fungible and they prefer the art of a particular noun.

so while I'm not entirely in favor of v1 i'm voting in favor here to signal that i'm very supportive of the v2 and that the paperclip team shouldn't be too discouraged of the against votes here! (and in the off chance this passes, i'm happy for wizardo to get a clean wizard head noun)

I agree with 9999. I would prefer to see a one of, personal essay instead of an automated text/transaction

nouns aren't fungible

I don't like the precedent of an onchain proposal any time someone wants to swap a noun. Governance fatigue is real; if the DAO endorses the practice of swapping Nouns (which is an entirely separate conversation) then it should be permissionless, e.g. separate audited contract that has approval to transfer Nouns from the treasury on swap.

On the topic of if swapping Nouns is a good thing, I need to think more on that. 9999's sentiment makes sense to me though.

See 454

Onchain DAO votes for someone to swap a Noun are inefficient in ETH and attention, it also is just picking off the treasury and reducing scarcity.

I hope to never see such a Proposal again.

tl;dr: Nouns are non-fungible/unique. Pooling undermines this principle and we should not endorse it. Bidders should bid on a Noun they connect with, not as a means to access another Noun. Swaps should include personal reasoning and should be case-by-case. We should discourage automated proposals that may flood governance or cause voter fatigue.

To Paperclip Labs: Thank you for building with Nouns and choosing to spend your time here. While I think the NounSwap protocol is not a good fit for the Nouns, I appreciate your effort.

To wizardo.eth: Why do you want to give up your fox Noun? It’s elegant and charming. Why bid on it if you don’t connect with it? What has changed?

vwr: While Noun swapping might be good for Nouners, it’s bad for Nouns. As collective custodians of the project, we should not be treating Nouns as fungible. We should not be creating mechanisms that treat them as interchangeable.

Nouns should be respected as individual entities. When someone acquires a Noun, they are choosing a specific one. They should not be choosing a Noun in order to opt into a pool of Nouns. The DAO should not create this pool or endorse this behaviour. In fact, we have a history of rejecting such ideas.

Sometimes, a Noun is won because its aesthetic didn't resonate as strongly with other bidders, allowing the auction winner to secure it without competition. There is a daily interaction of market forces and visual art that’s part of what makes Nouns interesting: a specific set of economic and aesthetic considerations happen with each new Noun. Using a Noun as a gateway to another in the pool changes the incentives, the process, and the unique qualities of the Noun itself.

This automated proposal claims that Noun swapping increases community engagement, but without a personal reason attached, we are not engaging with anyone. The swap is not “strategic” (as the proposal claims) because the DAO has no way to understand why it should agree to it.

In situations where a Nouner wishes to exchange their Noun for one from the treasury, it's important that the proposal contains their own explanation. This is an actual form of community engagement where we collectively consider the viewpoint of another Nouner and decide whether to honor their request. We’ve done this several times recently when gifting Nouns and it has been a successful way to have conversations and strengthen our community.

Let's ensure that our governance energy is focused on meaningful and thoughtful proposals, rather than routine, automated ones.

I welcome a conversation with wizardo.eth or any Nouner who is coming to the DAO for a swap. I do not believe this automated, impersonal approach serves us well.

As a final point, anything is possible in code. We can employ any manner of updates that change any part of the project. However, we have recognized that our code is our culture. And changes to code, change culture. Just because there are many Nouns in the treasury and the code to make swaps is relatively simple, doesn't mean the impact to the project will be small.

appreciate the novel design of the proposal template mechanism, but free noun swapping does not feel incentive compatible. simultaneously taxes the attention of dao members and dilutes the importance of noun id / age. while the idea might be directionally correct this implementation is not it