For: 6 | Against: 0 | Abstain: 0

in the end i have strong misgivings about whether financial exposure to the fungible parts of Nouns can/should be something seen as desirable. In my big-picture thinking the way we make Nouns 'work' (amenable to progressive decentralization at scale) is if the economics bias ever-more strongly towards amplifying the non-fungible bits; individual Nouns differentiated by ID, brand, governance narratives etc enjoy unbounded value accrual potential, while 'dormant' Nouns parroting a the view of a parent wallet or simply not doing anything are effectively taxed for being undifferentiated/ not providing unique value to the network.

viewed through the above lens this token starts to look a bit different, since, stripped of governance/digital identity, it would amount to taxation w/o representation. it's not that i think the # can't go up, but that it's in our collective interest to make it more and more difficult for that to happen, biasing instead for differentiation among circulating Nouns, in whatever meaningful character dimensions we can identify. This approach will tend make the dao more secure (& imo) more interesting/more fun.

Nouns sitting in the treasury or in LP does not fit so well with that goal, & i wonder if buyers, unable to leverage the tools of ID, PFP, Vote to build their Nounish life atop, will ultimately find themselves holding a structurally receding % of network value.

"Nouns are an experimental attempt to improve the formation of on-chain avatar communities. While projects such as CryptoPunks have attempted to bootstrap digital community and identity, Nouns attempt to bootstrap identity, community, governance, and a treasury that can be used by the community."

A significant % of our holder base puts major daily brain energy into Nouns, and have done for over 3 years. Can the same be said for any Erc-20 community?

It's possible i'm wrong and ultimately we want to pivot more towards erc-20 land/lean into fungibility, so i guess i've settled on abstain to signal that i welcome a simultaneous exploration of both paths if there is enough conviction in this as an alignment tool.

To me. rounds providing eth is also a token that is directly transferable to a Noun.

creating a defacto token when NFTX is and has been available seems like huge overthink.

The purpose and necessity seem misplaced IMO .

assumption : People are interested in governing. reality : they are not.

all the free mints of CC0 nouns that are used as pfp IS the proliferation.

I'm not convinced that having a "canonical" (read: Nouns official) ERC20 in any fashion is net good. The DAO has not developed delegation/proposal support for NFTX (just as an example) which would indicate some sort of demand.

While I understand the argument that this prop is an audit of code and not a vote on the concept, there's no reason the audit can happen after those in favor convince enough to vote for.

I still believe that Nouns DAO should have as few mechanisms to convert its social or cultural capital to material capital as possible. This seems like an attempt to build that path and would yield discussions of "but what would this do to $nouns?" at every prop.

For: 1 | Against: 1 | Abstain: 1

+abstain I'm still unsure how I'm feeling about the idea of nouns entering the erc-20 space AND the ensuing battle over which ones are canon and which ones aren't. — @indexcard.eth

+against Same with my 537 reasons, I was interested in the Meme Coin meta that went viral some time ago, maybe if $nouns or other memecoins that use cc0 Nouns were launched at that time it could attract a lot of attention. But if now or in the future I don't think it's worth it to create a native token erc-20 Nouns. — @0xishal

+for , i understand those in favor of voting $⌐◨-◨ , however i agree with a more simple initial version of a nouns fungible token — @!212992

via @zeroweight

Since this is just an audit, I'm not sure why this prop is not on target to pass quorum, yet the $--[]--[] (sorry I'm not going to go look for the ascii atm) nogs prop is on target to pass.

If this prop fails at the audit stage, why spend money developing an extremely similar solution? Won't it also fail at the audit stage if the DAO seems to think something like this is not worth building?

I'm personally in favor but the difference in voting behaviors through these two props is not making sense to me.

The nouniverse has voted through $NOGS ⌐◨-◨

FOR: 35 AGAINST: 9

For safer, directer, and more affordable access to Nouns DAO for smaller players.

For being able to tip and reward contributors with a stake in Nouns DAO without having to fork over a Noun.

For auditing the contract that would make that possible.

To me the risk reward seems about right.

"Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for"

I'm not convinced this is a good idea for Nouns in its current form. And for any proposal like this, I'd prefer to see some sort of sign off by the Foundation regarding any potential liability. (although I have no idea what the process is for making this happen and think we should get something around that figured out)

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

The decision to vote against funding the audit of the $nouns token reflects concerns about the necessity and potential impact of the project. Despite the importance of security audits, there are unresolved issues regarding community involvement and transparency in the discussions. This vote emphasizes the need for more comprehensive public discourse to explore the implications and strategic value of the $nouns project before committing further resources.

FOR - 8 VOTES

borg00000 | "Nouns paid a lot to create $nouns I assume, so seems mad to not audit it... but also, wen $⌐◨-◨?"

benbodhi | "I def support auditing this. And as Joel mentioned it would be cool to see more discussion/modelling around potential outcomes and projections beyond what we’ve seen already."

AGAINST - 18 VOTES

imwylin | "the potential ramifications of this have not been considered enough, at least not in a public forum"

ABSTAINS - 6 VOTES

lets get this party started

nouns is a community owned meme with decentralized governance. i don’t think it’s a security and i also don’t think giving it an option to transform into a fungible format makes it a security either. to think through some examples, if a subreddit had their own memecoin to fund community art and software in a decentralized way, is that memecoin a security? if a local community like oakland had their own community currency to provide mutual aid and support a local economy is that community currency a security? i don’t think those examples constitute investment contracts that the securities laws intend to capture and i would argue nouns even in a fungible format fall in a similar bucket as the examples above.

ofc i understand the perspective that it doesn’t matter what we think is fair or what our lawyers think is fair. ultimately if the sec deems it a security then the headache might land on our doorstep (even tho nouns isn’t a US domiciled project). but i’m also reminded of the fact that if we just go by what the sec thinks then even eth might be a security and me voting this onchain vote spending eth as gas might be an unregistered securities transaction. sec also deems uniswap in violation of securities laws as well. at some point we need to have our own views on things and take the steps forward in what we think is right while ofc being mindful of risks. if it helps the voters calibrate on the regulatory risk, imo memecoins such as degen that’s widely used on farcaster is no different than what we’re discussing here. if anything i would argue that nouns’ governance is far more decentralized. it is certainly not without risk but i would argue that we’re on the right side of history here.

also ultimately this prop is an audit prop. if the voter base deems the regulatory risks too big to deploy from the dao later on then so be it but at least let’s get this piece of open source software fully audited so that ourselves or anyone else can easily pick it up and use it in the future. surely writing open source software and getting it audited isn’t a crime! for the reasons above voting FOR

While I'm supportive of open-source code being audited, the design of, and stated use case for this token introduces significant regulatory risk that is not matched with a clear path to outsized benefit.

I'm not fully sold on the Nouns Fungible Token yet and need further discussion to make up my mind about it. That being said, I support funding the auditing for clear safety reasons.

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

Sadly I'm going to be that guy that votes "Against". I'm not fully convinced launching a token pegged to the NFTs will help getting us where our vision is. Furthermore, you can stack ETH and then get lucky a low bid day and probably get it for cheaper than 1M $NOUNS.

I personally would prefer seeing a better report on the tokenomics that gets into higher detail and is explicit about how this might affect the bids (between other things). And then, doing audit the of the finalized code.

Also, why no ERC20Votes from the get go in the contracts? It would so handy to get it from the initial version so there's more governance composability from it.

Appreciate the effort tho, and I'm really sorry for saying not this time, the effort put in is big and I certainly believe in the team behind.

$nouns ⌐◨-◨

$nouns is a great primitive for expanding the holders of Nouns. An audit will help it advance.

I def support auditing this. And as Joel mentioned it would be cool to see more discussion/modelling around potential outcomes and projections beyond what we’ve seen already.

⌐◨-◨

⌐◨-◨

I support this audit but in my opinion we should also fund a separate game theory / tokenomics audit on this. I have not seen sufficient discussion about how this will affect auction and arbitrage behavior.

memes w dreams

audit funding lgtm

Although ERC404 is probably the better day 1 design, it's not feasible to implement this in the existing protocol. Therefor I support this design direction.