Proposal 268 (Q139)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 268 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
101
0 references
Nouns Autobidder Trial (by Federation)
0 references
268
0 references
There has been considerable discussion around how the DAO could acquire Nouns to allocate to builders as part of proposals. There has not been clear consensus on the matter. Rather than letting disagreement stall the DAO I believe its important to support a few competitive solutions and let them prove themselves. This is interesting technology, its already built, and it would allow us to trustlessly funnel Nouns into the treasury. This tech does not allow for precise head selection (Beer for Bud Light, Chicken for Stoopid Buddy), which means there still is a place for a centralized group like NAC and other technical solutions being developed. This is called a Trial but a broader vision is not communicated. I wish it were. Im going to imagine that the next steps would be to fund this with much more ETH and let it run continuously. I am not a fan of the effect this would have on the auction experience for bidders and for people watching the auctions. Having a bot effectively enforce a price floor feels less fun and makes our core mechanism less authentic and entertaining. Also, as a builder who would love to be compensated with a Noun at some point, this tool isnt the ideal method for me. I would prefer to receive ETH so I can buy a Noun at auction and get the full Nouns experience. I support us buying 1 Noun with this tool, as an experiment.
0 references
Seems like a good direction to allow the DAO to control the acquisitions in a more trustless way. If the auto bidder could be controlled by few to the detriment of the DAO, I think we’d have bigger problems.
0 references
18
The first Barney the Dinosaur was a seemingly harmless character. However, the third Barney was brought to court in 1997, for sexual harrasment of a minor. He was found guilty in February of 1998, and served 5 years. He is now a registered sex offender in the state of Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia.
0 references
AutoBidder provides an interface for the DAO to acquire new Nouns with parameters (e.g., MaxBid) we agree on. The contract has already successfully bid and acquired nouns for Lil Nouns and Wizards DAO. I think it makes sense to try this out with Nouns proper.
0 references
wiz, i appreciate everything you do. for this prop, it doesnt feel like this is a good replacement to NAC. + i have a similar outlook as the reasoning behind bowers & wilsons votes.
0 references
As a fan of Wizs work, I find the autobidder bot for DAOs, clubs, and individuals looking to purchase a Noun quite impressive. However, I am uncertain why NounsDAO needs to acquire Nouns through this method. If NounsDAO is seeking to add more Nouns to its Treasury, I believe the methods being explored by Verbs are more preferable. In fact, there is already an available method being experimented with by DAOs using Nouns Builder.
0 references
Mostly agree with Wilson and Noun 40s reasoning - dont like the precedent of setting an auction floor for Nouns, and its not yet clear to me why this option is needed right now. I do however think people should be proposing alternative solutions to problems the DAO faces and just because Verbs is working on e.g. Airdrop doesnt mean others shouldnt propose their own solutions. But this specific prop doesnt do it for me.
0 references
Voting with Carella on this one... I prefer the Verbs method of adding more Nouns to the treasury.
0 references
18
it seems possible, or even probable that this will be repurposed to attempt to enforce a floor price for nouns, which im strongly against. also, if verbs current rage quit wip is implemented, the dao will have plenty of noun inventory to redistribute without the need to interfere with daily auctions
0 references
Excerpt from my newsletter (https://t.co/BFd43TBghs) : Im going to hammer on proposal standards here. This proposal is rather shallow and difficult to understand for someone non technical. It also doesnt go into key details, like how this would benefit the DAO and the advantages over the current model. Since the tech is already built, effectively, what were voting on is the funding of the contract with enough ETH for one bid. And I dont think thats the right way to go about it now. The right approach would be to have the Autobidder available as a public tool. Then if members of the DAO believe more Nouns should be acquired they can make a proposal with a proper strategy including amount, duration and the benefits of such actions. Even though I am voting against this version, I do believe that if the DAO wants to acquire more Nouns, the Autobidder is a better and fully decentralized way of doing it.
0 references
big fan of the team but im worried this prop is in fact a trojan horse
0 references
22
I dont understand this prop tbh. we currently use NAC to acquire nouns. theres flaws to NAC that we fully recognize and as a community have debated alternative designs extensively and settled on a path: https://snapshot.org/#/nouns.eth/proposal/0xebe4aec5b96dc5c008902da341bcd4936f5aa09baf73daaa545259183b203089 then what is this proposal trying to say? that we should actually use this rather than the path weve set out? or that we should use this as a replacement of NAC for the time being? lil nouns already uses this so the purpose of the prop is not to test if it works. after asking on twitter it seems like the purpose is to actually build social consensus around this as the preferred approach of the dao acquiring nouns. but the prop is not written in a way to even have that conversation and if we were to have that conversation it has many flaws including the ones that wilson has pointed out. voting no bc I dont think this is the best mechanism for the dao to acquire nouns and tbh I find the prop a bit misguided
0 references
Thanks to Wiz for the prop and the work here. I have several concerns about the mechanism design. Everyone can see the min and max bids, and so there is effectively a floor price on the auction. The incentive for the DAO and Noun holders would be to see the max bid realized and so someone could repeatedly bid (and get tips) from the auto bidder, and then outbid it, and bid again until the max bid is reached. I think in most cases it is better for someone to use a human bidder that cannot be gamed like this. If someone wants to bid at a specific price for a Noun they can just us a collection offer? That said, it sounds like Lil Nouns is already using this and is happy with it, and I am glad to hear it is useful to them. Beyond my concerns on the mechanism design, I dont see a reason for Nouns DAO to use this right now. From Twitter I gather that there is some idea here that this should be used to replace Nouns Acquisition Committee (NAC). I do not think this is a good replacement, and I would rather hold out for the paradigm where the DAO can directly vote to mint someone a Noun. Moreover, if this indeed a motivation it would have been better if it were stated directly in the prop, in my opinion. Thanks again for your work on this and for the Nouns community at large!
0 references
Im voting against this proposal because Im having a hard time understanding its purpose. While it may indeed have potential value, the lack of clear reasoning in the proposal (coupled with the fact that a similar trial is already underway via Lil Nouns) leads me to vote against. Beyond that, I have a feeling that implementing an autobidder with the sole purpose of sending Nouns to the treasury may not be the best decision. I would appreciate hearing clearer reasoning of why this should be implemented from a potential future submission.
0 references
158
0 references
11 April 2023
0 references
115
0 references
Federation
0 references
11 April 2023
0 references
Poll failed to meet vote threshold. **FOR - 22 VOTES** **byhardy** | *ez yes, has been useful for lils. also, not a bad idea to snag a Noun to hold in the treasury.* **AGAINST - 6 VOTES** **profwerder** | *I’d be in favor of this when the need was there. Doesn’t make sense until we have a specifc builder waiting on a noun especially since they may want something specific (aka basketball).*
0 references
31
0 references
7
0 references
1
0 references
The Federation plans to deploy an AutoBidder to purchase Nouns at auction for future proposals. The AutoBidder will be funded with 31 ETH, allowing the community to trial it w ith minimal risk and acquire 1 Noun for the treasury. The AutoBidder is a contract for trustlessly bidding on Nouns at auction and can be configured with specific settings.
0 references
Also, without reasoning being clear in prop people can only speculate. Maybe better to cancel and repropose with your motivation/goal clearly stated?
The purpose of the proposal is to provide an alternative to NAC. To establish a floor, a proposal would need to pass that sends a large amount of funds, which is unlikely to happen. The Noun that the auto bidder buys would go to the Noun treasury.
0 references
Asked in the Jungle but this is probably a better place. Will the Noun that the auto bidder buys go to the Noun treasury?
Yes, the Noun that the auto bidder buys will go to the Noun treasury.
0 references
fair, but right now I am saying I don't see a current need to acquire for future proposals. Could possibly be convinced, but then it seems the prop should be focused around that? Right now it feels like, We should do this because we can. Like, could be, Let's acquire USDC for future proposals. The substance should be on why/what for? And especially why when NAC still has funds and this has several downsides vs. that? But anyway I won't rehash all I've sad 😀
0 references
How do you guys mitigate against a bad actor btw? Someone intentionally bidding up the bot to force a max bid?
To mitigate against a bad actor intentionally bidding up the bot to force a max bid, the autobidder has a configurable bid execution window which would minimize griefing. For instance, you could only allow bidding in the last 5 minutes of the auction. Additionally, users should not be max bidding more than they are willing to pay, and those who want the best execution should be bidding manually instead of publishing their max bid on-chain. The autobidder helps minimize the downsides of English auctions by layering an order book onto it.
0 references
my confusion here is ... IS this different thanthe one lil nouns are running and if so isnt that the trial. why run 2 at teh same time?
The trial of the autobidder is different from the one Lil Nouns are running. The purpose of the trial is to potentially replace NAC and demonstrate how it works. The proposed model would enforce a bid floor as long as the contract has funds. The autobidder helps minimize the downsides of English auctions by layering an order book onto it.
0 references
Ok thanks. Isn’t it this case that for any given time we fund it, it only assures a floor price for those auctions (or until it wins) and does not actually guarantee we acquire? As I said elsewhere, I don’t love NAC, but I think it works for now and if we need a new solution we should wait for the “airdrop” model that people have already signaled on.
The Noun that the auto bidder buys will go to the Noun treasury. The proposal aims to provide an alternative to NAC and establish a floor price for Nouns. However, it doesn't guarantee the acquisition of Nouns, as it depends on the funds allocated and the outcome of the auctions.
0 references
some of it is me not looking into the contract. but why Lil's no bid again. with 25 top bid?
The max possible bid was slightly above 25. The autobidder might not have bid again due to the increment required on nouns being greater than the Lil's max bid parameter.
0 references
Sorry if I’m slow. What will happen if and once the trial is successful? Will it be deployed going forward to bid on nouns? Assume that will compete with Lil Nouns and also sets an artificial floor much higher than current average auction price?
If the trial is successful, it could potentially replace NAC and be deployed going forward to bid on nouns. It may compete with Lil Nouns and could set an artificial floor higher than the current average auction price. However, the autobidder helps minimize the downsides of English auctions by layering an orderbook onto it.
0 references
Sorry: what do you see as the purpose of the prop? To demonstrate how it works? To propose a NAC alternate? It seems this is about replacing NAC and the proposed model would indeed enforce a bid floor as long as the contract has funds?
The purpose of the proposal is to provide an alternative to NAC and demonstrate how the mechanism works. The proposed model would enforce a bid floor as long as the contract has funds. The mechanism works fine as a limit order for auctions, and the user should expect to pay their max price. The Noun that the auto bidder buys would go to the Noun treasury.
0 references
think it might be helpful to know what the autobidder is being used for (by lils/wizards) & can be used for by nouns. any insight there? <@332717877398470656>
The autobidder is being used by lils/wizards and can be used by nouns. It could potentially replace NAC. The autobidder helps minimize the downsides of English auctions by layering an order book onto it. There is a configurable bid execution window to minimize griefing, such as allowing bidding only in the last 5 minutes of the auction.
0 references
wow really? VRGDA is strictly superior to english auctions for Nounish DAOs imo
The conversation does not provide an answer to the question about doing something nounish while having a beer with Lil Bubble.
0 references
you mean the Verbs airdrop thing?
0 references
