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)

"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?

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

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

thanks for responses / think will be relaxed on security q if they are. 
Will clarify my reasoning tho is that, unlike a corporate voting share, the dao IS its voters, and, hopefully, does not have a dependency on a subset of managers.  
so if we create a nonvoting interest, doesn’t it set nouners up as the managers?

status on this? occurred to me it’s not clear if what they are saying is it’s not a risk to dao bc dao isn’t issuing but is a risk to people individually that  convert to $nouns and sell? Idk in my head the reason nouns aren’t securities is bc it’s participatory governance/no managers.. spaces could be a help

didn't think non-voting aspect of the $nouns tokens changed things much. nouns nfts are art/property. ppl can do things with their property, doesn't make it a security

our main counsel is stephen wink at latham watkins and he was happy to do a twitter spaces if helpful to the community. any interest in that?

got clarity on this from a call with foundation lawyers today that they feel "okay" with the securities risks here. in particular, given that the dao isn't the sole issuer but rather anyone with nouns can convert to erc20s it's more of a feature of the asset than an offering by the dao