Bonuses out of treasury to every Noun

Hey fellow nouners. It’s been a pity to see the price at the recent auctions: it dilutes a monetary value of every minted noun

Each noun worth at least as much as our treasury divided by the number of minted nouns to date.
More so we can profitably invest the treasury converting ETH to higher value by promoting the brand, and we will continue doing it as a community

Nevertheless, I feel like absence of concrete perks for Noun holders has had a negative influence on price over time. People like to be a part of a community - no doubt, but everyone likes sizable investments to have measurable payoffs

What if we provide each noun with a monthly pocket cash, payed monthly straight out of treasury? It would make a much clearer economic incentive to buy a Noun to straight up investors, and drive the price up!

Currently the treasury per capita rate is little over 56ETH. If we set the payout rate at 10% per year, each Noun would be payed 5.6ETH yearly or 0.46ETH each month.

It would make each new Noun a great investment vehicle, making each Nouner a little bit more happy but more importantly providing a very clear incentive to bid higher for new nouns

If every newly purchased noun would be bought exactly at the treasury-per-capita price, the salary would drive down this treasury-per-capita rate very slow, allowing the total treasury to keep growing. In the next year we will add 365 new nouns increasing the supply by 70%, in the year two - by 41%, while the salary makes a downward pressure by only 10% in the example above

We can decide which rate to choose, or adjust it every so often. I think it would be a great fun!

To make the incentive even more fun, instead of a steady predictable salary we can spend this fund on buying top NFT’s and making a random draw amongst all nouns - I would personally love this option, and think that it would result in the same price drive, but a little bit of gamble would provide more thrill to this endeavour

What do you think?

I don’t own a Noun, but agree that there should be an incentive as the floor price slowly crashes every week from an ATH. I’m still of the opinion that this DAO model is flawed. If you can afford to buy a Noun for the sake of voting, that’s great. But when you buy a Noun that depreciates by 20 eth in value, that just doesn’t make sense as an investment. The core team members that steer this ship forward are making a killing, I don’t have a problem with this, but it is debatable when the floor price is tanking quickly. People are getting paid A LOT. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Nouns in my opinion has come full circle otherwise it would maintain a steady floor price, granted most projects have lost their value, but this isn’t a 10k project, so the trading volume is low (maybe that is the problem) but besides a select amount of pitched projects being funded and it becoming extremely difficult for new comers to get their props on-chain without spamming delegates etc, what is honestly the point for creators to continue wasting their time and trying to contribute + make some money at the same time like everyone else in the ecosystem?

I would argue that it gets to a point where the common thread is: don’t waste your time, you won’t get funded as outsiders don’t get the time of day. This was very clear with the Brazil Coffee Prop, the team had a 5min pitch and no-one asked a single question. So why spend a few months putting that extensive prop together, consulting numerous people, wasting their time as well and essentially being ignored? Why? Because IRL projects are not entirely understood by the Nouns ecosystem. Your ROI as a holder can very easily come from IRL businesses as well. These Web3 projects are ‘for fun’ in many ways and I love that devs can make money etc. But is their work more important than 2 recent consumables props offering to build IRL projects to proliferate the meme?

IRL props need to give a return which will contribute to the treasury which only makes it’s income from selling Nouns at a falling floor price. The Whisky project is an example, the prop suggested giving a barrel of Whisky to each holder (300 barrels). This can be sold by the Nouns holder as an NFT. Even 1 eth return in a year on this is worth the while, right? How much money has Nouns Coffee returned to the ecosystem? Nouns Beans? etc etc. Nouns is currently a marketing vehicle that only supports a few players. If Nike was to run a similar business model, the DAO would maybe go broke in 2 years. Nouns only proliferating the meme, idk, does it make sense in the long run?

I stand to be corrected on all of this but it’s clear that the model is flawed if you expect to receive a ROI on your Nouns purchase.

I think it’s an interesting topic. To use your examples of the 4 proposal options, I think the DAO picked the two best choices. Nouns Coffee and Moonbeans are more general products that have the potential to reach large amounts of people. It’ll be interesting to see those continue to play out, to further iterate on the ideas, and most of all, to learn from the experience.

The whisky on the other hand is small batch serving mostly nouners (who may or may not like whisky) and the coffee shop, while cool, still just serves in one small area of the world without a viable way to scale it at this point.

If the goal is to proliferate the meme and generate momentum for the flywheel, then those calls are correct IMO. As far as the system being broken. It might be, but it’s still very early and we’re in a pretty deep crypto winter at the moment. The goal stated by many Nouners is to hold the line and when ETH comes roaring back, they’ll have an incredible war chest to spread the meme to the ends of the earth. Until then, I think it’s the right call to run small experiments, focus on systems, tools, and technology, and keep momentum until the market turns more positive.

I’m not a Nouner, but I’d be against this proposal because it doesn’t really serve the mission as I understand it. It feels like a short term gain that hurts the long term brand.

That being said, I’ll be really curious to see what Nouners think about it and it definitely is worth talking about to put the option out in the open.

Hi Guys, I’m going to jump in here quickly but this isn’t the thread where I want to chat in-depth as this is Noun219’s proposal. Nice to meet you and Rgb Noun. Andrew thanks for replying to our Nouncil post.

No one in South Africa to my knowledge has put a prop forward and from the start, it is to benefit the holders with the opportunity for them to sell their barrel nfts to the public over a span of 3 years as Nouns proliferate worldwide. Whisky barrel buying and selling is a lucrative investment on a global scale and this is an extended play for us and the holder. From my side, we will showcase Nouns Dao via traditional PR showcasing how forward-thinking and innovative the brand is and then coupled with a physical product how that changes the landscape for a small business. Nouns Square is a small business as well as Nouns Coffee. Our PR will reach 20 000 to 50 000 people across South Africa and then we will approach global alcohol-related news outlets showcasing the concept. This is the same game plan as all the other projects: to proliferate the meme worldwide, we’re just doing it in a different consumables category, whether you’re a whisky drinker or not, it doesn’t make the project less successful. This PR will continue over a span of 3 years to raise the floor value of each barrel and then take the whisky to competitions, the distillery has already won awards. It is a win-win for all and a % of the secondary sales goes back to the Dao over 3 years. Our only problem is getting this to an on-chain vote and then everyone can see if it’s a yes or a no. We’ve spent 6 months putting this prop together and hopefully we’ll get some sponsors to help us. I’m replying from our Nouns Coffee account as this will be another addition down the line in South Africa with consumables in mind as the proliferation vehicle.

Sounds like a ponzi with extra steps

I appreciate all the extra info! Obviously not my specialty or passion at all. That doesn’t make it a bad idea for the DAO though. I hope you can get some traction and get a yes or no.

How is this a ponzi?

2 more ideas:

1. Distribute rewards daily, when each new NOUN is born

If we distribute 10% amongst the entire population, at this rate it would amount to 8 ETH per each NOUN born. Please note that assuming that people would be willing to buy a 10% growing ETH investment, the price of a NOUN would be pushed to 56ETH. 8 would be distributed, so the treasury would still grow faster than it is now - strictly winning situation for a DAO

If at any point we find this situation unhealthy - we can always pass a vote to cancel this treasury distribution

2. Distribute only between active Nouns: e.g. those who voted on any of the proposals in the last month

It’s a small ask from each NOUN, but gives amazing obvious benefits to the comunity. The not-voting NOUN can always delegate, but must take it’s stance to get the full range of benefits

If any one sees obvious downsides to this proposal - please share them. Otherwise it sounds great - isn’t it?
I think incentive design is an essential factor of success in any endeavour, and this is my stab at this in our community

Hey, @AndrewLaddusaw, would you be willing to share your understanding of Noun’s mission?

I love it, and I don’t even have a Noun. Do it

Honestly, I don’t see why you wouldn’t dedicate a part of the treasury to a staking program, say $APE, and divide those rewards between all Nouns holders. This keeps the treasury from getting diluted too much because the rewards are based on yield, not principal.

And anyone who says “wHuT aBOut tOkn pRiCe drOp” — we’re in a bear market. Token prices are going to drop anyway. By getting rewards, you negate some of that.

There needs to be a regulatory mechanism that would affect the supply of nouns. That is, as the price falls below a given value of the noun, the smart contract would slow down the noun mint.
At the same time, this would have to go hand in hand with a multiplication of noun proliferation. Preferably outside the web3 world.
Ultimately, nouns would have to interact with the real world.
For this, more courage is needed to invest in such projects.

As I understand it, it is to proliferate the meme and activate the Nouns flywheel.

Valuable NFTs are sold → Fills the treasury → Fund the projects → attracts more people who →
Buy valuable NFTs that → Fill the treasury that → Funds the projects that → attracts others who →
Buy valuable NFTs that → Fill the treasury that → Funds the projects that → attracts others who →
and so on.

Your plan to extract value from the treasury with the only purpose of recouping some of the investment each individual put in feels extremely short sighted and defeatist. In my mind, it’s the equivalent of a corporation deciding they are no longer able to grow and will instead focus on paying dividends to stockholders. It’s unthinkable for Nouns in my opinion.

Here are some links referring to what I’m talking about:

The point here stands based on human psychology — that once liquid rewards begin to flow, they take over the process. Kind of like banana in a fruit smoothie.

So yeah, once these kinds of rewards start, they can’t stop. But they can be reduced over time to ensure the treasury isn’t overburdened, e.g. bitcoin halvening.

Nouns halvening?

I’m working in a concept that does exactly that. Will present it in a few days, would like to hear your opinion

That’s a good point you make. For outright investors the only incentive at the moment is the resale value of their Noun. And the Noun intrinsically only supports projects that might profit the Noun treasury or increase Nouns awareness, but the Noun doesn’t have any ownership in the treasury. Hence there is no direct link to any sort of returns by purchasing a Noun.

However, we also want to keep in mind that the core focus of this community I guess is not to become a traditional investment DAO for passive returns, but to in fact be a super cool community that someone would just like to be a part of. And we need funding to do projects that increase our fame and push the crypto ethos forward and support causes even outside of crypto that we collectively stand for. And projects that bring returns back to the Noun treasury would really serve both purposes.

I have a proposal in mind too and I’d like your feedback on it. I’ll post about it in few days.

My tiny bit of feedback on what you proposed is that it’s great you thought of staking into NFT programs and not make an investment like activity look like it and added some thrill to it…rather than just a plain passive investment.

But this it brings us to the core question the answer to which we collectively need to identify as a community. What driving force do we want behind the price of Nouns? Community fame or returns? Or a combination of the two?

So is everyone enjoying recent auction prices?

xD
‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

Hi! Very interesting topic. I don’t own a noun myself either, but it has become my goal to get one. That said, nouns giving “dividends” wouldn’t be an incentive for me to acquire one. It won’t give more value to the brand, but slowly distribute the remaining treasure without any guarantee that people would bid higher (it actually could go the other way round, since you would have an economic incentive to get it cheaper)

I think funds should be spent in spreading the nouns brand and cc0 ethos. If nouns become a global CC0 brand, its programmed scarcity will do the job for the price. Also I understand that we need incentives for community to spread the brand. So I would agree in using funds to reward active participants.

Any kind of eth producing perpetual flywheel is imho deeply against the core values of Nouns and would probably also attract the wrong people. (People who don’t vote, who don’t build, who simply don’t match Values of Nouns).

There are enough NFT projects working on such a basis - so I don’t see any need for Nouns to give up its core values just to become Ponzi project is 24.

What’s the value proposition for owning a Noun, besides feeling good about contributing to the mission?
I’m claiming that there should be something the owner gets for the auction prices stopping its plummet. Now there is hardly anything, and I think it’s unsustainable

I explained earlier how it wouldn’t diminish treasury and would actually make it grow faster, and why exactly it would lead to growth in price

“Feeling good about contributing to the mission” is the value proposition of Nouns.

In summary you suggest to use the treasury
to fill your own bags without building anything nounish. This is in direct competition with the values of the project.

Without treasury growth, there wouldn’t be any contributions to the ecosystem, and now the treasury grows much slower than it would given my proposal implemented.
Also: the mission of the project is to set it up
like it is and see what comes out of it. It’s a government structure experiment rather then charity DAO

I see more problems than solutions. Even outside the core values.

However, if the growth of the treasury is stimulated by a ponzi scheme, Nouns will pay out more “pocket money” to holders in 4-5 years than mint income is produced, since the pocket money is a fixed sum that will raise the floor prices once to x.

Since the idea is unlikely to cause the floor price to rise more than the fixed APY you propose, this “pocket money” will eventually lead to no treasury being available and will ultimately amount to 0 ETH in the wallets at some point.

I think it would be helpful to create some kind of tokenomics for the idea. Then one could also better assess the long-term consequences.

Also the cost in the first 2 years of about 16000 ETH seems absurdly high to me, assuming one would follow the 8 ETH/year proposal.

That’s $25 million, paid out at current ETH prices, without building on a nounish idea or something other meaningful.

You may be interested in the “Rage Quit” Research project:

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1v9oUJQxWfkZxIHhBDQvbyWUy29QMySoUjzM2_X1BrXs/mobilebasic#

This would, in essence, set a minimum price for nouns.

The defining characteristic of a ponzi scheme is that it’s a form of fraud. The fact that new members bring money to treasury and that all members have a share of treasury profits doesn’t make a project a ponzi scheme. Is ETH itself also a ponzi because newcomers have to buy ETH, while stakers just get it for free?

At 15% APY, the treasury will have equal inflow to outflow rate, when there is 365/0.15=2433 Nouns, which is indeed about 5 years from now. But this is far from getting the treasury to zero. By that time, we would can adjust a yield as a DAO many times, or stop it altogether. Furthermore, having a yield as a value proposition doesn’t stop Nouns development in a natural way through Nounish projects

The treasury is losing a lot of ETH every day by selling new Nouns at least 2x cheaper than it’s fair price at this size of a treasury : here is where the real loss lies.

I appreciate the rage quit proposal, thank you. I haven’t read it fully, but the main idea seems like a much more elegant solution to the issue I’m raising

Fellow 241.eth clearly does not understand what a ponzi scheme is. And unfortunately Rage Quit will not set a minimum price for nouns.

It may not be your typical Ponzi scheme, but it can quickly become one.

Ponzi schemes sometimes start out as legitimate investment vehicles, such as hedge funds, which can easily degenerate into a ponzi scheme when they unexpectedly lose money or fail to legitimately generate the expected returns (for example a higher floor price or rising floor prices).

To counter this, you would have to introduce halving or something like that, but that would may cause the floor prices to fall again and a lot of investors would want to get out.

Either way, treasury payouts would not set a floor price.

As much as I understand the desire for higher floor prices, I don’t think paying dividends from treasury is an elegant or sustainable solution to the problem.

To be honest, I don’t even see the current floor price as a problem, even if one wishes for something higher.

Of course, paying out small amounts as dividends to holders of nouns would help stabilize the price and increase demand from the next buyers, thereby creating price pressure. Of course, this would have to be coupled with another revenue model and not paying out from funds already raised to the treasury. I can’t imagine a situation where someone buys nouns, depositing into the vault, only to take out of it in a moment what they deposited by buying a noun. I, for example, would bundle it with a small commission on secondary sales. It would be distributed to holders. e.g. through aggregation of funds and distribution via RFI.

AND I see the minimum price as a problem. Top-down price fixing and control always ends badly. Let the market determine value.

I wonder if the market is even looking for another revenue sharing project right now.
If I were looking for the highest possible APY, I would probably rather invest in a Solana Casino project.

Not to mention that Nouns is currently charging 0% royalties on Opensea. This means that royalty sharing would not be possible at the moment.

If the royalties were 10% (which would probably lead to a drop in secondary sales) and Nouns distributed 10% of that to the holders, then the share per token would be 0.12 eth in the last 30 days.
This is imho not enough to have a massive impact on the floor price.

With an anticipated floor price of 50 eth and rounded 1.5-3 eth dividends in the first year, this would be an APY of 3-6%.

But who said royalties should be 10%? Let them be 0.5% or 1%. That’s enough.
And who said it would have a huge impact on the price right away?
Value has to be built up. Value —> secondary market trading----> fees —> distribution of dividends to holders.
And now the question is how to “pour value into it” here. Probably by building community , sudDAOS, fund interesting project etc.

As for APY. People can always go “invest” in projects like Luna, which was a real ponzi. There the APY was probably 30%+.
I for one am surprised that there are people who believed in it with such returns of capital.