Initially, this upgrade was written to enable two use cases:



1. Make auctions multiplayer by giving auctions a social element that frontends can extend.

2. Allow for the capture and retrieval of useful information as to why someone decided to become a nouner. 
 But following discussions both in private and onchain, I’m gathering that a more compelling implementation would be working towards the latter and shaping the functionality in a way where long form “acceptance speech” reasons are more incentivised than the fleeting comment type.

“This [an acceptance speech type] implementation would allow winning wallets only to put a one-off message on the landing page for ~24h until close of the next auction. A blog post with build-in but time-constraint distribution. My hunch is this implementation would yield more thoughtful comments and, personally, believe i would be more willing to write about my feelings on the project or why i choose to bid on this exact noun.” - krel.

Again, very compelling and am happy to propose a version of this for our consideration :)

FOR 🥌 0x41...0E73 🥌 0x32...d4f5

Throwing weight behind zero weight votes with reason.

+1 krel - excited about acceptance speech concept

(noun40 voting via agora)

had some time to think about this. i had this tweet and thread convo (https://twitter.com/hongkim__/status/1647654864858808321) about "mintReason" and wanting to give a way for our buyers to express why they bought a noun onchain. even then there was a view that bidWithReason is easier to do and might just fit the natural UX better b/c you have the attention of the bidder at the moment of bid rather than like a wall they can come back to to write something.

the concern with the bidWithReason view was that it wouldn't really lead to ppl writing substantial things b/c they don't even know if they are going to win. so it might lead to a playful bid comment as a in the moment type action but not really something that explains the WHY of why the person bought the noun.

looking at the result of bidWithReason having been launched in lil nouns i think most of that concern is true. there are mostly no comments or really short playful comments but the intended "capture useful information" goal that's expressed in this prop doesn't seem to have happened. also the way the comment is displayed in the UI wouldn't be conducive for anything more than a short comment.

if the goal here is to create space for a auction winner to say something meaningful that we can all give attention to (similar to propdates in a way) then i think we'd be better off with creating a UX where the winner (or just holder since someone can later buy at secondary too) can write something to the nouns world. gov clients like camp can show it on the activity page to give it attention. we could built sites that just show this information too. ofc the winner / buyer can just come say hi to the nouns farcaster channel which often does happen but increasingly as that space gets crowded a completely new user might not be able to say something that doesn't get filtered out by algos so having a onchain space does feel good to me. anyhow, i'm feeling that this doesn't really solve our need here.

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/501/votes

FOR 115 VOTES

0xADa31Add8450CA0422983B9a3103633b78938617 | *"LIL NOUNCIL HAS SPOKEN

Delegate to Lil Nouncil here -> https://lilnouns.wtf/delegate?to=lilnouncil.eth"*

0x2eE0485f71764bcD2062A84d9455688c581B90f8 | "Multiple people shipping nouns code. im here for that. "

AGAINST 54 VOTES

0x9e0e9D25a5ED9bc773f91691f0b45599255257B1 | "It's been used less than 20 times in 200 days on Lil Nouns, so I'm unsure of its potential on Nouns auctions unless bots start commenting."

ABSTAINS 0 VOTES

what others voting in against have covered already

The Nouncil has spoken.

We discuss all Nouns proposals every week in our Discord https://discord.gg/fdjJpMeV6K. The calls are public and all are welcome!

You can find previous call recordings here: https://nouncil.notion.site/30328df718424f17a623859018497fc2?v=806b5234a2a34b619c3d5028bcd879f0&pvs=4

For - Wins

FOR - 26 VOTES

benbodhi | "Love the feature. Cost seems a bit high but maybe I’m missing the depth of work involved."

toady_hawk | "Cool new primitive to explore."

peterpandam | "cool idea, appreciate the work"

yung_algorithm | "Yes"

AGAINST - 5 VOTES

448851407999860746 | "8 Eth as bounty? No"

ABSTAINS - 12 VOTES

+1 bix. if bidders have something to say imo we want to hear it. even more true if they try to use the forum in an adversarial manner.
don't see spam as much of a concern since there is still gas and its <= 1 comment per 2%-ish (?) price increase. we have 0-weight VwR which has seen limited bad-faith use & cost in bid case is higher since some eth must be locked.

Bidding is useful participation in the protocol. imo it earns you the right to say something- don't see why we'd ever opt out of more on-chain speech

I was initially For this prop but ended up talking myself out of it mainly bc i think there is a more interesting version of the idea around the corner --

The 'best case' for this design space seems to be longer form reasonings and motivations wrt why someone bought a noun (essentially onchain essays), while the 'worst case' is graffiti or spam. The current implementation seems to incentivize the latter, and even if the graffiti is harmless, its not very exciting nor does it seem to generate the sought after 'onboarding' effects. Arguments been made that we could filter out bad content on the frontend layer, but that too doesnt seem to help with the incentives.

My sense is that being able to comment on every bid is kinda transactional/fleeting and done with the (semi-)expectation of not winning the auction.

Instead, consider if the idea was tweaked from Bid Comments to Acceptance Speech (h/t @4156). This implementation would allow winning wallets only to put a one-off message on the landing page for ~24h until close of the next auction. A blog post with build-in but time-constraint distribution. My hunch is this implementation would yield more thoughtful comments and, personally, believe i would be more willing to write about my feelings on the project or why i choose to bid on this exact noun.

(Ofc this idea would also be somewhat open to abuse by arbers and i cant promise i would auto-slam a For vote on this implementation, but right in this moment im pretty excited about it.)

Notes:

• I think contract change proposals like this should always very clearly state the exact changes made and link to all relevant repos. Even though dot and soli (mentioned) are trusted community members, we should make it easy for voters to do the work and verify changes by themselves. Leaning this hard on the social layer and status of dot/soli is a bit too loose for me to be comfortable. Additionally, in this case, the proposal should outline why the suggested change does not have to go thru an audit, as that might not be clear to majority of voters.
• This mechanic was tried with Lils already and I wish dot had included more background info and learnings from that experiment. Even if (for lils-specific reasons) there was no real success cases, it couldve been an opportunity for dot to reason around why the mechanic is better suited for big Nouns.
• As for the 8e ask, given the above is done right, im generally supportive of compensating people well for going the extra mile and doing the work (ideation, coding, testing, etc) to expand Nouns' game mechanics.

(h/t @olli for helping me think through parts of this vwr)

Concerned about abuse, spam and trolling. Also concerned about utilization because the game theory is that you bid and stay silent, not bid and persuade people to outbid you.

Love the feature. Cost seems a bit high but maybe I’m missing the depth of work involved. I hadn't thought of the cheap cost to leave onchain history with bids - which in most cases I think would be fine and positive, but do note the potential for bad actors to abuse it. I lean optimistic that this is a positive change, while I'm concerned about (or misunderstanding) the cost for such an upgrade/change.

for - i am generally in favor of the idea of more people leaving artifacts of their beliefs on chain. I dont entirely view 4156's points as a negative

voting against because 1) i find it hard to justify the $20k price tag and 2) props that upgrade nouns contracts, however small, should be formatted in a way that leave no room for security concerns (as can be seen in vwrs). nothing re: audits was mentioned (regardless of whether they are needed or not) nor the relevant PRs were linked.

incentive alignment seems off here. vwr requires (directly) a noun or (indirectly) a delegation to leave a permanent mark on the nouniverse. assuming non-winning bids can also bwr, the only cost to defacing the nouniverse is the gas cost. it will almost certainly be abused

Comments have been an integral part of Nouns since forever. This is a very minor upgrade, but still appreciated. I didn't see any review/audit in the description tho, and that worries me. I have personally reviewed it and lgtm tho. That said, it shouldn't be this way and look forward seeing other protocol proposals that are more fined tuned.

I like this design space and am interested to see if it will provide us more information about bidders, and potentially start our onchain conversations even earlier. Would love to see future exploration of "bid with attribution" as well, maybe even reward people and projects who are credited with noun-pilling auction participants.

for, but would like to understand how it's been audited (if at all)

The Amigos didn’t meet quorum, which means we need to abstain.

--

FOR - 0 VOTES

AGAINST - 0 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 1 VOTES

Feels nounish

Love this! Great addition for people who want to use it.

Note: While I do know Solidity, I have not personally reviewed the contracts

Love it 👏

I believe this upgrade to the Nouns Auction contract is advantageous. I appreciate that these modifications can be compatible with other front-end clients in case Nouns.wtf is deprecated. This enhancement enables the DAO to promote data collection during the bidding process and facilitates signaling the origin of bidders.

Will there be a reason that irl auctions don't have "leave comments" feature? People exchange information and the auction price will go down.

I would love to see discussion around the necessasities of this feature and change my vote if it make sense.

For eg., will the upgraded version affect the auction price if one begs for a lower price because it's more meaningful to this individule? That could lead to a lower auction price/smaller treasury due to it is allowed to exchange info during the auction.

simple & small change, fun utility, retro comp for 100% completed work, long term builder and subDAO founder

still don’t have a basis for understanding fair pricing of software development as billable labor but the social value if “bid with comment” really catches on + the above factors in my view make the ask more than worth it at current winning bid values

as a personal aside while i have a delegation; want to take a moment onchain to salute Dot for the display of leadership in using the veto for Lil Nouns. hope people won’t allow any disagreements they have with you over that to influence their opinion around bid with comment + the ask being something Nouns DAO should or shouldn’t do.

wen prop to delegate Nouns DAO’s Lils to the Lil Nouncil?

Useful way to capture why people bid and to use that data to to direct proliferation efforts.