Wanted to run the idea of A/B testing treasury growth when settlement is auto-settled by the treasury versus settled on-demand. This could be a three-week test through which we compare total treasury growth, number of Lil Nouns settled and average price of settlement. The original settlement rules will be switched back on following the test. We can choose any future or historical period to compare to. The purpose of an A/B test would be to compare treasury growth under each scenario. One concern voiced is that settlement is happening when there’s demand, so if settlement is automatic it means there won’t be bidders driving treasury growth. The flip side of that is the possibility that there are bidders but we’re losing them, and they’re losing interest because the auction cadence is stop and go, and thus participation is as well. If we test treasury growth in each model we can more objectively say “we’re losing demand” or “there’s no demand”. By reverting the settlement rules back to their original, we risk nothing and stand to gain understanding through the test. My guess is that if Lil Nouns begin settling for less it will attract more bidders.
2 Likes
I fully support conducting this scenario testing to better understand the impact of settlement on growth. Would this require specific funding - data / tooling resources?
How would you actually go about this - I assume monte carlo simulations with some thought-out mix of scenario assumptions & variables?
1 Like