Thank you, 22. Totally noted on what a delegation to League Lils would mean. The safeguard there is the League of Lil’s accountability to lil nouns holders via using Snapshot to garner consensus and the ability of lil nouns holders to remove them from the League of Lil’s for bad governance behavior.
@biznoun I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to solve. Minimizing governance externalities should be a favored outcome. If some group gets the 300+ lil nouns delegated from nouns dao then they will effectively single handedly swing most votes on lil nouns dao (given recent voting participation). I would think that the current state of NOT voting is actually more ideal than delegation for delegation’s sake.
@noun22 I agree with you that nouns dao shouldn’t give all of the lil nouns away for free. But what about matching lil nounders’ contribution to the lil nouns SG pool? It’s I believe 10%, so effectively for every 10 lil nouns we get, we’d send one to their SG pool. I think it wouldn’t really change our financial exposure to lil nouns and would mostly be a sign of good faith. Why would we care? Well, they are committing to a 30% treasury reserve of nouns (bought 6 so far), so in a way we do benefit from the good will flowing both ways being stronger.
@dot I would disagree with nouns dao’s SG giving out lil nouns ourselves. That would in itself create some sort of soft official endorsement of lil nouns NFTs as a fractional (smaller denomination) version of nouns which I don’t think as an idea has super majority type support by nouns dao members.
TLDR; I think the status quo is good from a minimizing governance externalities perspective. Would consider matching lil nounders’ contribution to lil nouns’ SG pool. Wouldn’t support distributing ourselves in any way.
I appreciate you trying to find the balance - and I don’t want to come off as stubborn here - but I do not think we should reduce our exposure to Lil Nouns at all. If we gave up 1 of every 10, our exposure to Lil Nouns reduces from 10% to 9%. I think that could be a valuable 100bps one day!
In fact, I’d sooner support an initiative to INCREASE our exposure to Lil Nouns before giving a single one away (no specifics in mind, just making a point on how bullish I’m feeling about the project). I feel this way because I have been spending time poking around Lil Nouns lately and I am blown away by the success of the project. I do not own a single Lil Noun personally, so I’m not talking my book. I just think there is something special going on here, and we have seen some pretty impressive results from early coordination between the two DAOs. We should encourage continued coordination and not do anything to alter (disincentivize) what is going on right now.
Like you said, there is no “official” Nouns extension, but Lil Nouns has enjoyed much higher levels of engagement with Nouns DAO members than any other fork, and I think that is because we own 10% of it and we are incentivized to see it succeed.
When it comes to governance, I think at this stage it benefits Lil Nouns if we are a passive stakeholder, because like you said, our delegation would be a kingmaker that could upset the Lil Nouns ecosystem. We should figure out ways to coordinate and cooperate with Lil Nouns without reducing our exposure or fiddling with their governance.
I feel like at the very least we need a group called the ‘BIG League’ who is in charge of the lil nouns, even if they do nothing but babysit. Would be a lost opportunity otherwise.
Yeah, on reflection I agree with this take. I don’t think the delegation is a king maker because as I proposed, the delegatee multisig would simply vote the will of lil noun voters as expressed through a gasless Snapshot, but this requires a trust dependency so that’s a risk. Passive stake is likely the best option of the lot and a good model to use for the coming wave of forks that offer similar tribute.