Nouns

One Noun, every day, forever.

nouns.wtf

3 concerns
the ‘fungibilization’ of treasury nouns 
(the swap/auction proposal is far less bad in this dimension and that had strong opposition)

as a vehicle for speculation is non-accretive (solvable by allowing only dao to mint & issue as rewards)

w/o governance rights or POW to own, how is this not a security?

good Qs. 

i think nounswap and $nouns has some overlap but isn't addressing the same goal. $nouns doesn't make the entirety of the 500+ treasury nouns available for bid / fungible. only whatever the dao deposits into the $nouns contract. i imagine any point in time that's likely less then 50 treasury nouns (<10%)

given we don't plan to provide liquidity (pair treasury $nouns with eth and LP in a liquidity pool), there's just no need to keep a large treasury nouns balance (we can always top up if we need more to give out to builders / fans)

the argument for $nouns not being a security imo relies more on the fact that "1 noun = 1M $nouns" remains as frictionlessly and permissionlessly true as possible so that the analysis for $nouns is not distinct to nouns

the foundation is in dialogue with the foundation lawyers tho and will report back with more

idk if voting is the determinant of security / non-security (evidenced by the fact that actual securities allows you to vote on corporate matters)

This is still the primary ongoing divergence in our thinking, afaict. 
Because I don’t see price>bv as a healthy state for the dao (it’s fundamentally anxious in that it has a violent stop-loss trigger on the downside) I don’t think it’s beneficial to fold ‘retail’ (unfortunate catchall) into that dynamic

"vehicle of speculation" has a bad sounding implication but if we "increase economic owners" then that economic energy ultimately does make its way to the daily auction (the primary market) becoming more healthy as well. in a world where auction price > bv is an important aspect of health, that is accretive no?