In the evolving landscape of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs), particularly with Nouns DAO, it's impossible to overlook its unique rhythm. As we embrace innovation, technology, and spirited debates, we're now confronting a significant milestone: the "forking" mechanism. Is this a pivotal turn, or are we inadvertently opening a noundora's box?
The Double-Edged Sword of Forking
Forking undoubtedly intrigues me. But it's hard to shake off the feeling that this mechanism, though created with the intent of allowing members to leave in the case where they don’t agree with a proposal and at least 20% of the members are on board, might unwittingly play into the hands of malicious actors. They disguise their motives as “protecting the minority,” but is this all a facade?
Tip of the Hat to the Verbs Team
Before delving further, a heartfelt acknowledgment to the Verbs team is essential. The brilliance that Elad and David bring to the table, particularly in terms of tech development, cannot be understated. While their skill set is unmatched, it's concerning to see them being directed towards building the "rage quit" mechanism. There are surely other technological frontiers they could be pioneering for our community.
The “Rage Quit” Debate
Nouns have always been pretty clear-cut for me in terms of what you get when you buy one. If you bought one, either at auction or secondary, you knew the deal - there is no “rage quit” button. If you want out, you sell your tokens. That’s the premise as I’ve always understood it.
Yet, a faction now seems to believe that owning a noun automatically gives them entitlement to a slice of the treasury, calculated as the “book value” by dividing the total treasury by the number of existing nouns. This perspective is troubling; it's not only naive but could also be deemed malicious beyond initial impressions.
Nouns should be a vehicle for a voice in treasury decisions, not a direct ticket to its coffers. The collective treasury is for the greater good of the DAO, driving proposals that elevate our culture, technology, and brand.
Guarding Our DAO: The Veto Power
In this dynamic environment, the role of a veto becomes pivotal. While our endgame is undeniably pure decentralisation, the here and now demands safeguards. The veto isn’t a constraint - it’s our shield, protecting the protocol in its nascent stages, especially from those bent on leveraging the DAO for a quick buck.
The DAO Vision: Where We Stand
We're at a defining moment. A segment is obsessed with dissecting the treasury for instant gains. Yet, there are many, including me, who dream bigger - envisioning the DAO as a revolutionary, red-tape-free platform to fund groundbreaking projects. It's disheartening to see our discussions veer towards dividing the treasury, rather than propelling the DAO ethos into the wider world. Engaging with those only interested in arbitrage feels akin to negotiating with a burglar on what they can take from your home and where it all is.
The recent surge in debate, discussions, and development around the treasury division, instead of expanding the reach of the DAO’s values, feels counterproductive. We can't let ourselves get drained by these repetitive, circular debates.
I'm in this for the long haul. I’m here for pure decentralisation, automated transparency, and a shield against malicious intentions. But it feels like we're currently appeasing certain elements, allowing attempts to arbitrage based on the discrepancy between noun prices and the book value. This shouldn’t be our narrative.
It’s vital to recall why we started this journey. Nouns DAO is our shot at crafting something monumental - a future-ready infrastructure, a platform for transparent mass consensus. It deserves to be shielded from opportunistic attacks. We owe it to ourselves and our collective dream.
⌐◨-◨
