aren’t we discussing a crypto-very-encrypted-decentralized-unhackable system where it’s impossible to know what each node hosts or what kind of traffic is even passing through, because it’s encrypted and only the private key owners can decrypt it? (whoever does the transactions, or the canisters which were invoked by those private keys). sorry for a n00b question 
. But how did it end up like that, that a super-crypto-next-gen system that aims to be uncensorable, can simply be busted by any jurisdiction that decides to take down the nodes in the datacenters? it sounds very fragile, and easily censorable, in this case, isn’t it? let’s say the US wants some DeFi dApp dead, like Tornado cash, it can simply enforce it on all datacenters where it has its reach, and the last nodes which can still host it, remain in Russia and China… well, so a single country cannot censor a canister, at least that degree of “uncensorability” is achieved, correct? only if all countries cooperate to remove something from datacenters, it’ll be possible for them. so a completely criminal/terrorist stuff can be busted and cleaned up, by cooperation of all countries, but a political censorship or dictatorship related things where some countries are “against” the cleanup, are still uncensorable? sounds fine to me, I guess
I disagree about VC effect on a project, but agree on VC motives (because it’s their job, simple fact, and it’s OK to expect profits when investing capital to support a team/technology/idea).
Let’s not forget that VCs are people like us, who have to feed their families and send kids to school, and also that VCs decision making processes are useful both for the startups and for other investors (retail, who are not qualified enough to judge a technology or a team that’ll execute the plan) so others can piggyback on decisions that professionals did.
When capital is deployed, it’s good that expert VCs who’ve heard hundreds of business plans and saw hundreds of presentations, will judge if the idea/plan makes sense or not. That way resources are not wasted on teams/founders who can’t execute (and this is majority of people, 95% of us will want to go back home watch Netflix or spend more time with the kids, instead of running a startup. And 99% of us will be so tired during year 2-3 of running a startup, as in “screw this, I go retire on a farm and will grow veggies, otherwise I’ll lose my mind, from the criticism, the stubborn employees, the pressure from investors to deliver, the market conditions…”).
And because VCs only goal is to make returns on investment, they do their best to vet the teams/founders (apart of when they don’t and it end up embarrassing for them, like FTX, but we’re all humans, and having VCs to vet a project is better than not. So the chances of “something will be delivered” are much higher than when resources are poured by the retail into an unknown NFT anon founder who promises world domination).
The VCs stay until they judge the bubble is nearing its peak, but before the flaws crack the surface. They exit then, and so do the founders.
I agree that some projects work that way, but that’s why there’s lock periods for investors and teams. If the retail investors ape-in and don’t check the unlock schedule, it’s because they’re not investors, they’re playing a casino, and we should not feel sad for them, it’s their own decision to have fun throwing money (they know can lose) into random coins and tokens hoping for returns. If someone wants to play with these folks at the other side of the field (on founders-rug-pullers side of the game board) let them play, it’s their business, all these people know exactly what they’re doing and who they’re playing against (against all other retail apes, and against the founders/VCs of the super-hype-best-rug-pull-crypto coins).
On that happy note, I want to ask where can we look up the ICP VCs and team allocations vesting and unlock schedule for Dfinity? Is it published somewhere? I didn’t find in Google because it always leads to “lock your tokens in neurons” articles
agree, lol. 10 chains, or 20 chains, or 100, working at the same speed of 2 minutes finality (or whatever it was, I don’t remember details, but there’s no breakthrough there, except of breakthrough in Ego sizes, of a few leading devs and execs in the team , and I’ve been hanging up in their discord for a year) with a Lisp-style DSL (
aka “mass adoption ahead!”) with developers AND users have to specify “on which of the 20 chains I will run the transaction” () with funds getting lost if a wrong chain number is selected, is not my favorite blockchain
i cant find a.complete picture of the vesting and unlock schedules. On the dfinity subreddit, these questions have been asked multiple times and never seem to have a full answer but i havent read through it all yet so maybe it is there https://www.reddit.com/r/dfinity/search/?q=vesting&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=
you may want to make a thread here about it
ouch, there are so many questions there over 2 years and some parts of the tokenomics and early allocations were never explained or vesting schedule shown. well, can we all just assume then, a mistake was made early on in the project, by trusting people and giving them tokens without proper lockup period, and exposing this now will mean hurting the project even more, in addition to the damage which was already done (it might actually mean a complete collapse and death of the project, if the price tanks even more, in response to release of “we admit our mistakes, here are XYZ, we’re sorry” , so maybe they do have a brand manager onboard after all? lol. he does his best to not let more damage happen, and vettoes any attempts by other members to reveal the information, I can imagine smth like that easily). but pretty sad, yeah, we all need to be careful and wait and see. too many risks at the moment, the inflation rate (nodes that join), the market, and scandals that might erupt if someone of the early investors/insiders speaks up. let’s wait and see. but I wish the tech team good luck, because the tech side of the project is top notch, let’s not mix them into that politics/financials soup 
but wish them good luck and success in the new year 
(the new year mood doesn’t let me go, lol)
Why so few boundary nodes? Currently there are 9 of them. This does not seem to be sufficient in my opinion for real decentralization.
Because the current boundary nodes are Dfinity controlled and, as implemented now, they cannot be run in a trustless manner. Dfinity engineering team is building a redesigned boundary server model so that independent node providers can apply to run new API Boundary Nodes which are secured from interference in a similar manner to the IC Replica Nodes.
ETA is later this year IIUC, then decentralised boundary node services will become a reality.
See this whole thread for more information:
I appreciate the explanation. I have a better understanding now of Why and the way ahead.