ProposalsProposal 581

Contract Audit Funding: TimelockNFTSwapper

Defeated

For

Against

Abstain

Quorum: 93

Proposed by

0x6559...Bd11

, sponsored by

0x33a7...1FfC

TLDR

Asking for 8,000 USDC to fund an audit conducted by 0x52 of the TimelockNFTSwapper contract.

Context

Feedback from NounSwap v1 proposals (453, 454, 541, 566, 571) highlighted that Nouners felt that voting on each swap proposal created voter fatigue and preferred a model that does not rely on governance. To solve this, we built the TimelockNFTSwapper contract to enable permissionless swaps.

TimelockNFTSwapper

The TimelockNFTSwapper is a generalized, non-upgradable contract that is a public good that can be deployed by any DAO. In the context of Nouns, it introduces:

Permissionless Swapping: Enables swapping of treasury Nouns without individual proposals, avoiding governance fatigue, and saving time and gas fees.
New Revenue Source: Each swap incurs a fee directed to the DAO based on a price curve outlined in the section below.
Timelock Mechanism: A two-step process with a timelock to prevents misuse and interference with Nouns governance.

For more information, please refer to the detailed spec document and implementation.

Swap Price Curve

The swap price is based on the difference between the input and output Noun ID’s, and is determined by the swapPriceCurveBase and swapPriceCurveSlope which are DAO configurable. We will work with the community to select agreeable parameters before deployment.

Curve:

ageDiff = inputTokenId - outputTokenId
price = swapPriceCurveBase + swapPriceCurveSlope * max(0, ageDiff)

Here are some examples of how this looks with a few different parameter sets:

This pricing model is a compromise between fixed pricing (which is possible by setting the slope to 0), and auction based price discovery. Auction based price discovery adds significant contract complexity, and we feel there won't be sufficient demand to have this play out in practice.

Audit Plan

We plan to undergo a 3 day audit by 0x52. The audit will ensure the security and functionality of the TimelockNFTSwapper contract.

We have reserved an audit spot for July 26, pending this proposal's approval.

Next Steps

Once we receive the audit results, and review/implement any necessary fixes, we will:

Deploy the TimelockNFTSwapper for Nouns.
Create another proposal to approve this deployment for all treasury Nouns which will enable permissionless swapping.

Transactions

Similar to the Verbs Client Incentive Audit Proposal, this proposal's single transaction approves the Paperclip Labs multisig to spend the requested budget.

Conclusion

TimelockNFTSwapper enables permissionless swapping, and unlocks a new revenue stream for the DAO. It allows Nouners to acquire their "forever Noun", which will help increase DAO satisfaction and engagement. We appreciate the community consideration in reviewing this proposal, and hope we can move forward with the audit.

Team

Spencer Perkins - Co-Founder at Paperclip Labs
Cole Perkins - Co-Founder at Paperclip Labs
Michael Gingras - Engineer at Agora

Proposal votes

For

Against

Abstain

Quorum: 93

Activity

0xCA72...9B62

voted against (2)

I like reading the reasoning for wanting to swap your noun.

196d

0xd8EF...B17A

voted abstain (1)

196d

0x0a04...e79B

voted for (3)

For: 5 | Against: 1 | Abstain: 0

+against would vote for if the swap price curve was removed entirely — @brettdrawsstuff

+for let the people swap 😊 — @frog

+for — @bixbite

+for — @yes2crypto.eth

+for — @fattybuthappy

+for people want to swap and get their forever noun. the contract is very flexible and supports both approving all OR a subset of treasury nouns for swapping without moving them to a new address (which would break the quorum calculations) — @datadanne.eth

196d

0x56eb...11DD

voted abstain (2)

from /nounsfe: For: 0 | Against: 2 | Abstain: 4

tori: Abstain, maybe it is like weird of me but I feel like if you do not want your noun then you should try to sell it and buy a new one instead of swapping. Maybe a marketplace to sell nouns would be better. I think trading creates a very uncomfortable environment that can lead to sketchy scenarios we would just like to avoid. Also I do not mind reading the swap votes because we kind of got into nouns to be apart of the community and that means voting on proposals and interacting. if we do not want to vote on something then we have the option not to, but I like being able to have the option.

katalyyst: abstain, i think this is a very low price for such an initiative, but i'm just unsure about noun swapping in general. feels like a big change for the DAO that I'm not fully ready to support.

onter: +1 katalyyst

jesscas: Abstain, I haven't really felt the fatigue that comes with swap props, I feel like they're actually fairly digestible and straightforward, does not contribute to the fatigue. +1 tori

lunari: against, +1 jesscas. very awesome contract though! would love to see this be integrated in other DAO's or be tweaked with the feedback. papercliplabs is a great team :] also big +1 with joaoborges.eth, I'd love to see more interesting swap proposals, as it adds story/lore and really makes a connection between the art, token, and address. it would be interesting to see a way to curate those swap proposals a bit more.

197d

0xE3ff...149d

voted abstain (2)

0xa903...a44C

(against)

I like the idea of permissionless swaps and the pricing curve is interesting, but I don't think we should expose the whole treasury of nouns to this. I think I'd rather see a contract the DAO deploys hold a bunch of nouns approved by the DAO to be swapped permissionlessly, so the DAO has some of the best ones, and lower IDs for more choice in how those ones would be distributed.

I also haven't found the one off proposals that annoying since they are few and far between. But ultimately, I do think a pool for permissionless swapping would be rad, just not the whole treasury.

This contract would be dope for other DAOs though!

197d

0xBEBa...D741

voted for (3)

@playdna_ - A collective of individuals collaborating on a mission to make Nouns playable.

PlayDNA is FOR with a 3-1 vote result. See below for our members' votes with reasons:

FOR

TheBower.eth: Personally I'm a fan of being able to swap nouns with the treasury. In my view it objectively doesn't make nouns fungible, it in fact incentivizes the opposite, as each noun is different and people have different personal preferences of style. Also support permissionless swapping, much better than going through a vote every time.

eusoujp.eth: I'm still not sure if letting any Noun from the treasury be swapped is what we as a community want, but considering the contract "is a public good that can be deployed by any DAO," I think we definitely should fund the audit!

FabValle.eth: I like the idea of swapping Nouns, it can be a fun way to reward the owners - since they already bough a Noun and just want to have fun with a different one.

AGAINST

joaoborges.eth: +1 @stripymofo.eth “I would prefer to see swap proposals that have a greater and more detailed reason why a swap is needed, versus a temple creation from nounswap, a style of awarding a swap would allow us to see and appreciate the action and contributions of people requesting a swap.”

197d

0xf2b7...098f

voted for (1)

0xf84a...b5A8

(for)

I'm voting FOR, because the team has already developed a first iteration of the concept and the tooling.

When will we use it? For how long will we use it? How will we use it? Will we use it?

those are all separate conceptual conversations that are in demand to be addressed, however not part of this proposal.

Resharing some vwrs because there are aspects and thought starters that I find interesting to consider. And, I recall Brett casted or commented somewhere "1 Noun = 1 Vote = 1 Noun", which I too find an important framing to consider when assessing the full(?) picture.

To me, it sounds like we're close to having all tooling available to make people happy with their forever noun, which requires intentional orchestration(s?) of campaigns that activate different tools at different times across the seasons.

Anyways, let's get the existing tooling audited.

197d

0x08cE...9dea

voted for (1)

I think permissionless swaps is something worth pursuing, and I find this implementation interesting. I'm in favor of an audit.

197d

0xFC53...6183

voted abstain (1)

197d

0xcC26...6Ed5

voted against (32)

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 a link to previous call recordings in our Discord "links" channel.

Nouncil has decided against this proposal, with 8 votes for, 18 against, and 7 abstentions. While there was support for the concept of permissionless swaps, concerns were raised about the overall implementation. Some members felt that the idea of swapping treasury Nouns was not compelling and questioned the necessity of the proposed changes. The configuration of the fee structure and the timelock period were noted, but ultimately, the proposal did not gain sufficient support.

FOR - 8 VOTES

AGAINST - 18 VOTES

borg00000 | "Swapping treasury nouns doesn't excite me personally. If there is appetite from the dao then why don't they send treasury nouns to $nouns contract which already allows for this (I don't think people want that) and I don't like this idea of just swapping with any treasury noun, makes no sense to me though, these things are non-fungible."

brettdrawsstuff | "for permissionless swaps, against added fees"

benbodhi | "I like the idea of permissionless swaps and the pricing curve is interesting, but I don't think we should expose the whole treasury of nouns to this. I think I'd rather see a contract the DAO deploys hold a bunch of nouns approved by the DAO to be swapped permissionlessly, so the DAO has some of the best ones, and lower IDs for more choice in how those ones would be distributed.I also haven't found the one off proposals that annoying since they are few and far between. But ultimately, I do think a pool for permissionless swapping would be rad, just not the whole treasury.This contract would be dope for other DAOs though!"

ABSTAINS - 7 VOTES

197d

0x8bF1...3d74

voted against (3)

197d

0x4bF8...bCc0

voted for (5)

I like funding audits.

197d

0x13eE...DA33

voted for (1)

worth experimenting with and doing a trial run to see if we can learn something new. really appreciate your contributions so far to nouns!

197d

0xA868...9E63

voted against (5)

This is tough bc i really like Paperclips continued efforts to make headway in the swap space but im not yet convinced this is a good design.

Would vote against the dao putting all nouns (esp low id) into this contract so voting against here too.

197d

0xf84a...b5A8

voted for (1)

0xae47...5Fed

(against)

Nouns are non-fungible so i cant personally get behind this idea (also think it could kind of ruin the auction like the bagpipe noun said). Nouns holding all these NFTs imo is great, and individual proposals to request / swap one are interesting and add lore.

Nouns has 561 Noun NFTs Yuga Labs has 423 CryptoPunks

Nobody seems to be campaigning for Yuga Labs to burn and/or rapidly distribute their CryptoPunks. I see no real merit to making them instantly swappable.

0xc2d4...e413

(against)

NounSwap Prop 457 was already defeated and Noun Id pricing isn’t a meaningful enough mechanic to revisit (see my vwr on the topic). Nouns in the treasury should not become a permissionless pool.

I’ve enjoyed reading individual Noun swap props. They would be less “fatiguing” if the boilerplate was removed, but otherwise have served as an excellent introduction to the Nouner in their own words. Presenting oneself to a large group, onchain, is bold and insightful. Compared to $nouns permissionless pool swaps, which lack any personality, swap props are becoming a form of community building.

0xC7CC...7d87

(against)

While I appreciate Spencer and Cole's work, for me, the Dao offers many tools to mint a noun that you desire. I think allowing permissionless swapping takes away from the auction demand. I would prefer to see swap proposals that have a greater and more detailed reason why a swap is needed, versus a temple creation from nounswap, a style of awarding a swap would allow us to see and appreciate the action and contributions of people requesting a swap. This should help slow down requests as we learn what is expected to be passed in a Dao vote . This notion that the auction can be a window to grab whatever you like feels bad to me.

I'm voting FOR, because the team has already developed a first iteration of the concept and the tooling.

When will we use it? For how long will we use it? How will we use it? Will we use it?

those are all separate conceptual conversations that are in demand to be addressed, however not part of this proposal.

Anyways, let's get the existing tooling audited.

197d

0x6fB5...83b0

voted abstain (1)

198d

0x9997...8eED

voted for (1)

Did a quick overview, looks good to me. Nice job on tests. The audit will go the extra mile for security.

Let me know if are struggling to find an audit for the cost, I'd be down to be another pair of eyes.

One initial though: is the curve fixed when ageDiff low? Can't you just keep swapping down (e.g. 999 -> 989 -> 980) to avoid the premium?

198d

0x5160...8523

voted for (1)

198d

0x3Cbd...8637

voted for (2)

198d

0xDCb4...5E5e

voted for (2)

https://www.lilnouns.wtf/vote/nounsdao/581/votes

FOR 166 VOTES

0x65A3...1D63 | *"people want to swap. We can let them swap via proposals (annoying, cost gas, cost attention) or we can let them do it for free.

The cost here is extremely low relative to other props"*

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAIN 0 VOTES

198d

0x2eE0...90f8

voted against (2)

One of my favorite nounish teams.

198d

0xae47...5Fed

voted against (0)

Nouns has 561 Noun NFTs Yuga Labs has 423 CryptoPunks

Nobody seems to be campaigning for Yuga Labs to burn and/or rapidly distribute their CryptoPunks. I see no real merit to making them instantly swappable.

199d

0x560D...79E6

voted for (1)

well scoped
well budgeted
reduces voter fatigue
makes noun holders happier
adds a revenue stream
great team

199d

0xa903...a44C

voted against (2)

I also haven't found the one off proposals that annoying since they are few and far between. But ultimately, I do think a pool for permissionless swapping would be rad, just not the whole treasury.

This contract would be dope for other DAOs though!

199d

0x7f64...d6d2

voted against (3)

0xc2d4...e413

(against)

NounSwap Prop 457 was already defeated and Noun Id pricing isn’t a meaningful enough mechanic to revisit (see my vwr on the topic). Nouns in the treasury should not become a permissionless pool.

200d

0x44b1...11DE

voted for (1)

I think this is a solid idea on all accounts. We have the following: a) an easier way for individuals to find their "forever noun", that is also less fatiguing for voters and less awkward for proposers. b) a new revenue stream for the DAO

Both would benefit the DAO, thanks to the team for the work here.

200d

0xc2d4...e413

voted against (4)

NounSwap Prop 457 was already defeated and Noun Id pricing isn’t a meaningful enough mechanic to revisit (see my vwr on the topic). Nouns in the treasury should not become a permissionless pool.

200d

0x65A3...1D63

voted for (1)

The question to me is: do we want to vote on proposals every time someone wants a swap or should we simply allow them to swap for their forever noun?

For me it's an easy choice. You should be able to get whatever noun speaks to you must without having to convince everyone else that you "deserve it". Let people do what they want. Let the people swap.

200d

0xC7CC...7d87

voted against (1)

200d

0x06AE...F6C5

voted for (1)

0x05A1...011c

(for)

Strong yes, thank you papercliplabs.eth for building this! <3

i'm in favor of letting nouns holders swap for their preferred noun from the treasury. it's a cool feature that also benefits the floor + auction prices for otherwise less appealing nouns. also very much in favor of removing the governance burden for both proposers and voters.

gut reaction is that 0.1 ETH seems like a good fee to set for deployment.

love this.

P.S. I just confirmed that nounswap.wtf works out of the box via the iframe fidget on nounspace.

check it out on my space: https://www.nounspace.com/s/willywonka.eth

got free nOGs for y'all if you're interested, my DC's are open!

here's our discord too: https://discord.gg/6BQPU5ep

200d

0x05A1...011c

voted for (1)

Strong yes, thank you papercliplabs.eth for building this! <3

gut reaction is that 0.1 ETH seems like a good fee to set for deployment.

200d

ProposalsProposal 581

Contract Audit Funding: TimelockNFTSwapper

Defeated

For

Against

Abstain

Quorum: 93

Proposed by

0x6559...Bd11

, sponsored by

0x33a7...1FfC

TLDR

Asking for 8,000 USDC to fund an audit conducted by 0x52 of the TimelockNFTSwapper contract.

Context

TimelockNFTSwapper

The TimelockNFTSwapper is a generalized, non-upgradable contract that is a public good that can be deployed by any DAO. In the context of Nouns, it introduces:

Permissionless Swapping: Enables swapping of treasury Nouns without individual proposals, avoiding governance fatigue, and saving time and gas fees.
New Revenue Source: Each swap incurs a fee directed to the DAO based on a price curve outlined in the section below.
Timelock Mechanism: A two-step process with a timelock to prevents misuse and interference with Nouns governance.

For more information, please refer to the detailed spec document and implementation.

Swap Price Curve

Curve:

ageDiff = inputTokenId - outputTokenId
price = swapPriceCurveBase + swapPriceCurveSlope * max(0, ageDiff)

Here are some examples of how this looks with a few different parameter sets:

Audit Plan

We plan to undergo a 3 day audit by 0x52. The audit will ensure the security and functionality of the TimelockNFTSwapper contract.

We have reserved an audit spot for July 26, pending this proposal's approval.

Next Steps

Once we receive the audit results, and review/implement any necessary fixes, we will:

Deploy the TimelockNFTSwapper for Nouns.
Create another proposal to approve this deployment for all treasury Nouns which will enable permissionless swapping.

Transactions

Similar to the Verbs Client Incentive Audit Proposal, this proposal's single transaction approves the Paperclip Labs multisig to spend the requested budget.

Conclusion

Team

Spencer Perkins - Co-Founder at Paperclip Labs
Cole Perkins - Co-Founder at Paperclip Labs
Michael Gingras - Engineer at Agora