Transaction Details

Transaction Hash:
0xd0 98dfc3b59adf6deee33adcc502e68a679c37fbe7d0cba4ccc238d86f61 196e
Status:
Success
Block:
19726302 Finalized
Timestamp:
2024-04-24 16:04:11 +0000 UTC
From:
0xa903C0…79a44C
benbodhi.eth
Interacted With:
Value:
0 ETH 0.00 ETH
Transaction Fee:
0.00240453 ETH 0.00 ETH
Effective Gas Price:
19.87955494 GWei
Execution Stats:
Used 120955 out of 176051 Gas (69%)
Gas Fees:
Base Block Fee: 18.87955494 GWei | Max Overall Fee: 22.69169661 GWei | Max Priority Fee: 1 GWei
Attributes:
Txn Type: 2 (EIP-1559)
Nonce: 2085
Block Position: 51
Call Data:
Name:
VoteCast(address indexed voter, uint256 proposalId, uint8 support, uint256 votes, string reason)
Topics:
0 0xb8e138887d0aa13bab447e82de9d5c1777041ecd21ca36ba824ff1e6c07ddda4
1 0x000000000000000000000000a903c06bf35286f6d1cdad25396748353979a44c
Data (Decoded):
proposalId uint256
531
reason string
I originally voted FOR in the Nouncil poll to put this prop onchain as it's a parameter that can be changed again if necessary and I was curious about the wider opinion/perspective on the threshold. My initial reaction to the poll was that it should be difficult to fork. However, after more thought, and for the actual vote on the proposal, I think it's fine as is or even a lower threshold would be fine. If we look at honest minority forking, then higher threshold is obviously not good. I think the simplest view of why anyone might support this is just to protect the treasury from being exploited at all. But it isn't that simple. This threshold change is a technicality that's not exciting to me either way and I hope to spend more time focused on the more fun things in nouns. I also think proposals like this could and should have more context. I believe Nouncil will address this for any future proposals of this nature.
support uint8
0
voter address
votes uint256
1
Data (Hex):