I’ll keep this short and sweet, I’m disappointed in how Dfinity has chosen to handle the recent discussion regarding the follower reset proposal.
The relative thread has been blocked cause people were going off topic, this in my opinion is a slap in the face for all the work @Accumulating.icp has done and all the time he dedicated with the sole purpose of improving the IC, if a thread is brigaded and users start posting nonsense then they should be warned and, if the behaviour persists, punished, a healthy discussion shouldn’t be penalized for it. Was the discussion growing stale and going in circles? Perhaps. But that is the nature of arguing complex topics sometimes and it shouldn’t justify blocking the thread.
This is by no mean a critic to the user who posted it, I chose it cause it perfectly paints a broader picture. Dfinity has stated multiple time the proposal was about fixing spam as a justification for why it is no longer needed and while it is certainly true addressing spam was one of its goals, at least in intent, it straight up states the benefit it brings to the decentralization of the system is “much more important”, literally reading the statement following the highlighted one counters the point being made.
Furthermore this proposal alone would have infact increased spam, increased rejection cost and fixed rewards are the solutions that have removed the incentives for spam, ironically now that the issue, which the reset proposal would have worsened, has been fixed, it is the perfect time to implement followers reset cause it wouldn’t just result in better governance but also in decreased inflation and now more than ever we need as less of it as possible.
I’ll close by saying I commend @Accumulating.icp’s dedication and pacience and it’s a shame a potentially fruitful conversation has devolved into chaos.
In all fairness, that forum thread got very nasty. It was moderated, which means the worst of the worst was removed. It reads much less offensive now and can easily leave someone to wonder why it got locked. IMO, it definitely needed to be locked.
I think you’ve categorized it very well @Zane . I have also been left disappointed with the way things have been handled, as in my opinion, it has shown the true nature behind the network.
It is my hope that the content of the thread is not moderated / edited further, so that future readers are able to get a true understanding of what has occurred here, and the lengths gone to, in order to circumvent this topic.
I appreciate that you’ve spent the time & effort to collect your thoughts & share them - God bless you ser.
That is not the true narrative of how the thread events occurred.
The moderator had to take comments down as they were offensive and of attacking nature; which as of now and for future readers would not be on the discussion thread.
A better approach would be to stay on topic on future discussions and be respectful when responding. The whole point of the forum is to have meaningful discussions and when in a topic users are attacking each other moderators don’t have an option other than to delete offensive comments or monetarily block offensive users for a period of time from the forum. Or better yet, lock the thread if further discussions are not being meaningful.
Literally none of my comments were removed, and I was one of few people to stay on topic. Furthermore, this does not justify them actively circumventing & diverting the topic.
Just because you don’t view decentralization as meaningful, doesn’t mean others don’t.
This thread is still available to read & I encourage anyone with the time to do so - it’s very transparent of true intentions & characters.
If you guys feel that you can’t speak your mind freely on this forum, I suggest starting your own forum and moderating it yourself. Its pretty easy to setup.
Instead of pointing fingers at Dfinity all the time, act on it.
And regarding the global scope of the discussion;
I hear a lot of talk that Dfinity has to much power over the network which i don’t disagree with, but from a different perspective…
After an additional launch delay, the mainnet launch happened around 2 years ago, with that they released a 20 year roadmap short after that. As most IC developers know, there is still a lot that can be improved and added to mature the network, so i don’t blame them for keeping control until they feel comfortable to make it fully community governed.
Genuine question, what is it you guys are afraid of? That Dfinity kills their network that they’ve been working on since 2015?
Nope, We are much more worried about the abuse of Network Nervous System and insider information to Front-run everything. If you dig through the forum, you can see that DFINITY has been providing Toniq Insider information to front run ckbtc feature, meanwhile toniq has never built a decentralized application till date.
Decentralization is important for credible neutrality and DAOs are not corporations or meant to be run by corporations who abuse the insider information to help their vested interests.
There is a reason network effects suffer on this blockchain and it is by design. DFINITY becomes a bottleneck for everything because DFINITY controls the network.
What do you mean by front-running? Asking existing projects to implement something new to demo it to the rest of the developer community?
i’m pro all-on-chain, but not everything is possible yet,
and about Toniq,
For the frontend, yes, Toniq takes a hybrid approach, they probably have their reasons to do that, developer capacity, IC bottlenecks, etc, etc.
I think you are totally wrong in your claim;
Toniq is more then a NFT marketplace, Toniq Labs · GitHub ,
To name a few things;
the most used standards for NFTs on the IC to date,
wallet(s),
tooling
And about the “insider information”, not sure what you are referring to but Dfinity reached out to a lot of projects to do something with ckBTC. And if Toniq got somekind of special treatment, it was probably for promotion purposes (which i am not aware of).
In our opinion this chart is self explanatory on the status quo of NFT ecosystem on IC
Building a NFT standard and tooling doesn’t make Toniq anything special deserving special treatment, it just makes them another “business” writing code.
There are hundereds of other developers that have created wonderful tools but barely got any special treatment from DFINITY. If you think the discussion is about Toniq and not credible neutrality then we can assure you its not.
You can read this proposal for more details on what we are describing. We will not be providing more examples because we do not want to waste our time at the moment doing free work , that is cleaning after DFINITY’s mess.
We also know a few projects that do not want to touch ckBTC because Toniq is providing the API for KYT compliance
