Is it possible to make the time adjustments around Noun’s birthday or Lil Nouns birthday? So each birthday increases the time by 15min?
1 Like
I admire the approach intellectually, but simplicity in the marketing is crucial. The more I think about it, 100k makes the most sense. Web3 is going to rocket, Lil Nouns has the potential to reach far more people than any other, and the fast auctions are what’s keeping the community so engaged. 100k is a good round number to drop the rate to 1 per hour.
2 Likes
Big fan of this proposal, so long as lil nouns never outpaces nouns.
i think this is sound
but i also think we should delay the decision until we are close to 100k
who knows, by that time, maybe 1m makes more sense?
remember, 8 billion ppl in the world
Deflationary Supply Schedule Implementation
Fast auctions are hugely important for keeping the community regularly engaged. That said, we’re averaging 70.39 Lil Nouns minted per day. This equates to 25k+ Lil Nouns minted annually.
My proposal is to attract greater demand now, in the first 4 years, by executing a vote on a supply schedule reduction from every 15 minutes to “One Lil Noun, Every Hour, Forever” post 100k Lil Nouns minted.
Just as Bitcoin’s four-year block reward cycle incentivizes demand and drives price / market cap appreciation by implementing a periodic halving, Lil Nouns should implement a similar constraint now to drive greater demand in the first four years. The community will hurry forward in anticipation as the implementation heightens interest, attracts more bids and most importantly grows the value of the treasury so that we can fund additional public goods and do more to propagate the meme.
Post 100k minted, we’ll still be minting 8k+ Lil Nouns annually.
This four year timeframe affords the community a sizable window to backtrack if desired, while the immediate execution of the proposal drives immediate anticipation.
4 Likes
okay i might actually vote for this, good job
1 Like
I think this is the way here. Could be an event almost like a having (or a “NOUNING”) in which we know exactly when the time doubles to the point it will pass the allocation of the current time for the OG Nouns. Bravo ser
3 Likes
I lack the coding experience to write the proposed transaction. Would either of you be willing to write the transaction for me to submit with this description?
What problem is this intended to solve?
I’ve been eager to get involved with Lil Nouns, but this thread worries me. It sounds like folks that are early in want to protect themselves from dilution.
I like the ethos of the project as it is now. The open ended nature makes it unique. It encourages broad adoption. I think it would be cool to see as many Lil Nouns as there are ENS names.
If the issue is DAO operation, why not vertically partition into multiple DAOs.
Trying to limit access and participation feels like the wrong path to me.
4 Likes
This response is off topic per the first post. Thank you for submitting another example for why this Discourse needs to be token gated per the 2nd highest viewed discussion in this form: Token-gating this forum for lilnouns holders - #9 by travsap. Interest and participation in general discussion is always appreciated if you’re offering information from a place of understanding or experience, or asking questions. But if you’re new to the project, have missed most of the discussion that’s already taken place, and then move into governance discourse to offer insight without understanding, and without any stake in the treasury or voting power, please don’t. It’s intrusive and distracting. The purpose of proposals is for those with voting power to vote on adjustments to the DAO that serve them, not you.
Thanks for speaking up. Mostly agree with this and rest assured travsap is only one member and does not speak for the community at large.
1 Like
Thanks, krel. Would you by any chance be interested in coauthoring this with me by writing the transaction code? Or do you know someone who would?
For those who would like a summary:
The Deflationary Supply Schedule issue has been noted and most of the community members are generally in favor of postponing further discussions related to this issue. At this point in time, current supply schedule will help to proliferate noun ecosystem and should not be tampered with.
3 Likes
I think some level of deflationary supply should be implemented. Governance already has that, with more and more lil nouns needed to submit proposals. The worst case scenario would be 20k+ lil nouns in, and the price is so deflated that it costs more in gas to settle the auction than the worth of the lil noun. That would kill the project entirely.
1 Like
I have two sets of comments that should be treated separately from each other:
- Regardless of the model, it looks like we will definitely have to upgrade the contract to support a changeDuration function. Currently, the contract sets duration on initialization, and you can only initialize once. It would be helpful to make this upgrade regardless of what we do.
2a. The main reason to consider changing the duration is that perception is important. At any point in time, we have to be doing enough interesting stuff given the size of the community. Over time, the best case is that interestingness has kept up with the size of the community but the worst case is that it definitely hasn’t, and new people perceive that gap as stagnation. We currently have ~70 new Lil Nouns joining our community every day, on average. Are we doing enough new interesting stuff to match that pace? My argument is no, not yet. By reducing the number of auctions and focusing on building a motivated community, we have a better chance at making that a yes.
2b. Let’s not overcomplicate supply schedule. IMO for branding reasons, if we want to change the duration, we need to pick a duration we are comfortable having forever, even if supply does not asymptote. I recommend 1 hour (8,760 per year) because it appeals to our origin mission (24 Lil Nouns for every 1 Noun; that’s still accessible in comparison).
3 Likes
Thanks for thinking through this and your reply. Would you have any interest in upgrading the implementation of the auction contract to add that function in? I would greatly appreciate your help!
1 noun every 1 hour forever
a lot of great ideas in here but also a lot of unnecessary complexity
1 Like
I like the idea of doing something relatable like this.
Another thought – was thinking of “dog years” versus “human years.” One human year is 15 dog years.
Right now, the ratio would be like one “noun year” to 96 lil noun years (nominally, 96 created per 1 noun created).
I like the idea of communicating whatever the deflationary curve is like that – first, using some sort of cute metaphor, second communicating in terms of what that means in terms of how many lil nouns are created per Noun, versus how many Nouns are created per year.
Agree with this. And honestly ~70 minted lil nouns aren’t all new users, a lot of them are multiple purchases from existing noun members. Considering the slow initial start, I am in favor for a deflationary model. But this is such a huge decision because it sets a precedence on our philosophy. We can’t continue to change the mint rate willy nilly. We need to make our first change as perfect as possible.
1 Like
As for going down this path eventually, I think the only contract code change would be a duration setter.
There shouldn’t be any side effects with changing the duration but this diff can be better tested and deployed as an potential upgrade target that gives the DAO this flexibility to execute the proposal.
3 Likes