Accumulator Neuron SNS Due Diligence - (BOOM DAO)

I’d like to preface this by stating that this is in no means financial advice, nor is it meant to criticize the decentralized application in discussion. The following article is a collection of objective observations, in regards to the Accumulator Neurons SNS Voting Criteria, which can be found in the resources below.


Accumulator Neuron SNS Voting Criteria

SNS Proposal Discussion

Protocol Documentation Relevant to Analysis

Protocol Abstract

BOOM DAO is unlike most other dApps being pushed to SNS - being a DAO focused on providing gaming tooling infrastructure & funding game development.


Main Net dApp

Is the dApp live and operational? Has the development team demonstrated technical competence specifically regarding the Internet Computer Protocol?

Boom DAO currently has 5 public tools or templates; The World Engine, a Game Launcher, a Unity Template, the ICP.NET Library & a World Template - all of which can be referenced below.

As such, yes, I do believe it is reasonable to say that the BOOM DAO Foundation has exemplified technical competence in relation to development on the Internet Computer.

Is the dApp fully on-chain, meaning both the front end and back end of the protocol are hosted in Canister smart contracts?

Yes, the Boom DAO tooling & templates enable 100% on-chain operability.

Does the dApp rely on third-party dependencies, such as off-chain providers, fee-gated APIs, or other mechanisms that rely on intermediaries? If so, is there a plan to transfer these dependencies to Canisters and the SNS? Additionally, is there a plan to fund these mechanisms independently, without solely relying on the SNS Treasury?

Seemingly, the only third party dependency within the BOOM DAO tooling & templates provided, is the Unity Game Engine itself. This is due to the fact that Unity has recently announced it will charge developers per installation under the instances of;

  • A game has made $200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND has had at least 200,000 lifetime game installs (Unity Personal and Unity Plus)
  • A game has made $1,000,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 1,000,000 lifetime game installs (Unity Pro and Unity Enterprise)

However, this does not appear to be addressed within the BOOM DAO Documentation, offering potential for unexpected fees or legal pursuits of developers in the instance of large scale successful games.

Can the dApp, in its current form, be considered a complete product that fulfills its intended purpose? If the development team were to suddenly stop building, would the dApp still be able to function and achieve its objectives?

Given BOOM DAO’s goal is to provide opensource game tooling, yes I do believe it is reasonable to say it currently fulfills its intended purpose, as showcased by the previous Unity Tooling & Templates.

In the instance founders stopped development, BOOM DAO would be able to continue providing opensource tooling, however it’s worth noting it would be doing so at a handicap, as the Founding Team has reserved a large percentage of the treasury to pay themselves for tooling - reducing overall funding in the instance they leave.

Protocol Overview

Is the protocol open source?

Yes, the BOOM DAO tooling is opensource & are provided in the Github below.

Has the team provided a clear white paper that details the protocol comprehensively? Additionally, is there technical documentation available that explains the underlying mechanisms, functionalities, and concepts of the protocol?

Yes, the team has provided an extensive whitepaper that details the protocol, although it does appear to get redundant at times. However, it can be noted that the documentation provides adequate coverage on the configurations of metadata & the codebase of the tooling.

Is there an insightful overview of the tokenomics provided? Is token allocation responsible & proportionate?

Yes, the documentation covers the tokenomics of the protocol, although there is not absolute clarity provided.

The token allocations is as follows:

Decentralization Sale - 40%

Treasury - 27%

Founding Partners - 23%

Founding Team - 10%

However, if you delve deeper into the “Founding Partners”, you’ll find the following are listed:

  • Rick of DSCVR
  • Tommy of Plethora Games
  • Max of Plethora Games
  • Hitesh of Plethora Games
  • Jack of Plethora Games
  • Misha of BOOM DAO
  • Gekctek of ICP.NET
  • Joey of Cubetopia
  • Cubetopia
  • Plethora Games
  • Ricardo of Elementum
  • Elementum
  • George of UnfoldVR
  • UnfoldVR
  • Obsidian Tears
  • Inside Dark Studio
  • Eimolad
  • Paws Arena
  • Puppies Realm of Darkness
  • Cosmicrafts
  • Cthulu
  • DFINITY Space Academy
  • Boxy World

If you observe the partner list, you will find that 6/24 Partners (of which will receive token allocations, according to the whitepaper), are direct members of the Plethora Games & BOOM DAO Foundation - or in other words, founding members. From this perspective; it appears as though these members are attempting to double down on token allocations, receiving both a founding team allocation, and a partner allocation.

If you assume each “partner” receives an equal split of the 23% token allocation, this results in the BOOM DAO Foundation receiving 25% of the 23% Token Allocation, or an additional 5.75% of token supply - totalling 15.75% for the founding team.

This can be broken down further into the following categories; Protocol, Community & Insiders.

Protocol - 27%

  • Treasury

Community - 40%

  • Decentralization Sale

Insiders - 33%

  • Founders
  • Partners

As such, I can not agree that the token allocation is fair, as it seemingly attempts to mislead participants regarding true team token allocations, while also reserving an abundant amount of the token supply for the team & partners.

Additionally, the Founding Team has reserved a monstrous 80% of the treasury’s $ICP to be paid out over the coming years - raising further concern.

Has the team articulated why the SNS is the ideal decentralization solution for their application at this time?

I personally do not believe that the team has adequately articulated why an SNS DAO is optimal for gaming tooling infrastructure. They have consistently cited it’s about the community within the white paper, however, this is contradicted by abundant token allocations & treasury reservations.

Is the team publicly known within the ecosystem? Do they have a visible presence in the crypto community or relevant industry events?

Yes, the team is publicly known within the ecosystem, being founded by ICP Maximalist & Tommy Invests. I believe it is reasonable to say these individuals have a visible community presence, given their previous NFT launches & work with Plethora Games.

Is the team’s dynamic transparent? Do team members openly communicate and collaborate with the community?

No, the teams dynamic is not transparent - there is no indication regarding who the core team truly consists of, who is developing the product, and which roles they fulfill, aside from the “Partners” tab which is seemingly filled with an abundance of misinformation. Additionally, there is no true history of community collaboration, as BOOM DAO publicly “joined” the ecosystem when they announced their SNS plans in June & pushed it to proposal shortly after.

What is the team’s track record and experience in the relevant field? Has the team made notable contributions to the ecosystem or relevant projects?

The team is anonymous, and gives no indication regarding who actually develops the individual toolings of the DAO.

As such, the typical team background analysis (referencing LinkedIns & individual histories) can not be performed, however, it can be noted that the BOOM DAO Founding team recently underwent controversy for refusing to pay a previous contractor for their work, as depicted in the following threads:

While I won’t draw a conclusion, there are certainly a few discrepancies & contradictions in Plethoras’ claims regarding Cipher Proxy’s Contributions.

Proof of Valuation

Has the team shown comparable raises within the industry sector? Does the valuation accurately address the current and potential market shares?

No, the team has shown no comparable raises within the industry. As such, it is impossible to gauge whether the valuation accurately reflects current & potential market share with the information provided by the BOOM DAO Foundation.

Has the team provided transparency regarding the valuation? Is the valuation method disclosed, and is the math behind it available for review?

No, the team has not provided transparency regarding the valuation of the DAO - there is no valuation method disclosed, nor is the math available to cross reference its accuracy.

Security Audit

Is a security audit necessary for the application?

Given BOOM DAO has the ambition to be the foundational layer of gaming infrastructure on ICP, eventually providing the source code for potentially hundreds of games hosting thousands of players, yes, I believe it is reasonable that the BOOM DAO smart contracts undergo audits, as they have the potential to offer vulnerabilities to user assets.

Has the code received at least some degree of review? Is there transparency and disclosure regarding the security measures taken?

In respect to publicly available documentation, it does not appear as though BOOM DAO has undergone a formal security audit.

Neuron Fund Allocation

Is the Neuron Fund utilized? If so, what percentage of the sale is the Neuron Fund? If so, what is the size of the contribution in respect to the size of the Neuron Fund?

Yes, the BOOM DAO Foundation has requested the Neuron Fund Contribute 240,000 ICP of the 400,000 ICP minimum requirement.

Assuming a 1:1 Conversion of the Neuron Fund’s Maturity, this equates to 9.2% of the Neuron Fund’s liquidity.

In correlation to the sale, assuming the Minimum Contribution Threshold is met, the Neuron Fund will represent 60% of the sale. Alternatively, assuming the Maximum Contribution threshold is met, the Neuron Fund will Contribute 30% of the sale.


In conclusion, several significant concerns and unanswered questions have arisen. These concerns pertain to various aspects of the project, including transparency, token allocation, team dynamics, security measures, and the rationale for utilizing an SNS DAO for gaming tooling infrastructure. As such, the BOOM DAO Foundation has earned my vote to reject for the following reasons, as detailed above:

  • Lack of transparency regarding the core team’s identity and composition.
  • Controversies related to payments to a contractor raise concerns about the team’s integrity.
  • Token allocation raises questions about fairness, especially regarding the “Founding Partners,” and may be misleading regarding team token allocations.
  • The rationale for utilizing an SNS DAO for gaming tooling infrastructure is not convincingly articulated.
  • No evidence of a formal security audit, despite the project’s ambition and potential to impact user assets.
  • Lack of transparency regarding the project’s valuation method and calculations.

@wpb , unofficially representing Boomdao as their press secretary, could potentially provide comments on this matter.

I think he resigned:


thanks for the FUD. Buying more BOOM DAO.

1 Like

Why don’t you start a thread expressing ICX (Seers) concerns? And why did you not express any concerns about them?
I checked and it seems that you and your friend remained silent on this forum.
This is my objective impression based on what you have said and done so far.

There is nothing wrong with criticism and position talk based on an individual’s subjective point of view. However, I believe it is also an important role of members to judge whether opinions and actions are consistent.

1 Like

I did & I was just as critical.

I have a history of providing objective due diligence on nearly every SNS launch, with the exception of OpenChat (& a formal review for Sonic, which inspired the generation of my SNS Criteria).

You’re more than welcome to cross reference it (or any of the other 6 Due Diligence’s I have performed) to verify that they’re all equally objective.


Sorry about that. I guess I misunderstood, as I didn’t see any similar concerns, at least not on this forum, and I’m sure there are many users who feel the same way, as most of the topics on Twitter (X) were mainly about Sonic, EMC, and Boom DAO.
I personally don’t think it is necessary to be impartial and there is no problem to speak according to each interest, but I felt that it is better to be consistent in what we do and say.

1 Like

I utilize different forum topics for different due diligence reviews - each comes with its own set of concerns, which is something you can verify by reviewing them.

Here’s a thread containing all of the Due Diligence reviews:

That’s perfectly fine! Everyone has their own views on this matter, however I prefer to remain objective within SNS Due Diligence Reviews so that it is a form of content consumable by all.

If you feel as though I haven’t been consistent in my actions regarding due diligence, I would appreciate if you could highlight it so I can take corrective action & ensure these reviews are receiving a higher degree of uniformity! Thanks!


I disagree. The token allocation seems reasonable. Your arguments in this section are seemingly full of assumptions. For example, you don’t know who is identified as a Founding Partner for the purpose of token allocation nor do you know how that allocation is split. I’m curious if you ever attempted to ask for these kinds of details from the team or if your claims are all seemingly based on your own assumptions

This seems like a disingenuous presentation of information. The vast majority of the partners associated with BoomDAO have been around since genesis or longer. They are well known people and projects in the ICP ecosystem.

Wait…what? Are you joking? You are seemingly a central participant in this slander campaign. You were quick to issue public judgement before Max ever had a chance to respond. After Max responded with reasonable counter arguments that represented the other side of the story, you were asked if you would like to recant some of your claims. Of course, you chose to double down instead. Don’t try to make yourself look objective when you clearly are not.

I don’t understand why you just now on Sept 18 decided to write and publish your “Due Diligence” on the BoomDAO SNS. The proposal 124292 you are referencing passed on Sept 3, which was over 2 weeks ago. In fact, the BoomDAO SNS token swap ended on Sept 15. Hence, you are super late to the party. Why did you feel the need to publish this “research” after it was already too late? Did you publish it somewhere else and then feel the need to move it to the forum for some reason?

How did I do?
Just to be clear…I am not a BoomDAO representative in any way other than being a community member who wants to see all ICP projects succeed.

LOL. I don’t follow you and you don’t follow me on Twitter. Plus I only get notifications from people who have verified phone numbers and emails. Hence, I usually only learn when you tag me by seeking you out. To be honest, I got tired looking for information on this topic. Everything that needed to be said was already said.


This is information that should be public. If the whitepaper is claiming that Partners are receiving token allocations - you should be able to reference the “PARTNER” tab to find the corresponding people.

I very clearly tried to run my due diligence by them, to which they tried to bring me into a private call, presumably to sway my due diligence, when in reality every due diligence prior has been vetted over text.

However, I’m curious how you think taking 80% of a treasury that is supposed to be the “future of ICP Gaming” with 2 years is reasonable though? What type of runway does that leave for people after the fact?

You very clear bias towards the success of BOOM DAO is showing.

It’s not disingenuous at all - just because the founders have been apart of the ecosystem, does not translate to a history for BOOM DAO.

This due diligence is not about Plethora Games, Moonwalkers, or any of their other projects - it’s specifically in relation to BOOM DAO, which has no history beyond June (when they announced their SNS), as I’ve stated.

I seen receipts before they were public (which they now are), which very clearly showcased Plethora knowingly going back on their agreement, while Plethora changed their story multiple times.

Plethora had nothing but he-say she-say, while constantly attempting to twist the narrative to favour themselves while slandering Cipher Proxy (yes, quite literal slander, considering they lied about Cipher Proxy en masse).

Cipher Proxy had an agreement with Plethora, which Plethora knowingly broke - and has since tried to justify.

I’m curious how you’re so comfortable defending people who are ripping off contractors - with the proof to show for it!

I’m really hoping this isn’t your true character coming out, as you used to be really effective in governance!

This review is objective, my twitter is not. I’ve never claimed differently. Your emotional outburst is clouding your judgement regarding the objectivity of my reviews.

The fact that you think I need to justify this is icing on the cake - I’m welcome to post my due diligence whenever I please, because they’re my due diligence! If you don’t like it, simply don’t read them - you look silly when you start complaining about something so trivial.

You certainly had everyone tricked - this is the only SNS you’ve ever acted like this for! Maybe it’s just because your friends though!

Well that’s quite the convenient excuse! Good thing I have a verified email & phone number!

However, surely you can appreciate the irony in the fact that you came to me, tried to sway my opinion with Plethora’s weightless statement, and then decided to abandon the conversation when facts & receipts are presented.

And for the sake of “getting said what needs to be said”;

I’d add that you quite clearly have a bias towards participants of this SNS, and have done everything in your power to push them through the sale, while failing to acknowledge the fact that receipts have been provided showcasing Plethora’s malicious actions. I’m starting to wonder if you have ulterior motives - I’ve never seen you act like this about an SNS sale!


Fantastically put. I admire the perserverance in addressing and clarifying accusatory, bias rhetorics for those who may not find easy to see through.

Sadly, this is far too needed if we are to make real changes to culture and technical direction, as we can clearly see what the last 2 years without this, has caused.


Would be helpful if wpb actually provided clarity rather than get defensive. These are valid points of concern that community members are talking about.


Among all SNS projects, this is the sole instance where you unequivocally display partisanship, rendering conversations with you quite exhausting.


These public floggings are gold though haha

Common accumulating win, what an unbelievable amount of stamina he has.


Yet another fantastic review of an sns project for potential investors. Thank you for going through the effort to provide these unbiased reports.

I know there are some in the eco who are not happy with what you are doing, but it’s not your fault that all of these projects are going to sns without being ready and there are whale wallets pushing the sales through (I won’t even start a discussion about potential motives).

Keep up the good work.


I’ve got no problem admitting my biased opinion on the BoomDAO SNS launch. I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve worked with Max and know he is a man of integrity. I’ve watched Tommy in public since he joined the ICP community and have seen the valuable contributions he makes. I’ve seen great features and projects that have been produced by the partners, contributors, and projects associated with BoomDAO. I’m excited about all the developments that could be stimulated by BoomDAO regarding a gaming vertical on ICP. The future of the ICP ecosystem is bright and I expect BoomDAO will make important contributions that enable success of many projects.

The proof you are holding in such high regard and the proof provided by Max showed that Cipherproxy was inexperienced and incapable of delivering results. They over promised and under delivered. They agreed to renegotiated payment terms and were paid fairly for the work they produced.

So you are admitting to colluding to produce a FUD campaign to harm the BoomDAO SNS launch by knowing what one side would say before they said it publicly and attacking the other side immediately without even stopping to ask for the other side of the story. Somehow you and your cohorts think your biased Twitter presence can filter down to an objective “Due Dilugence” on the forum. This is simultaneously funny and sad, but also typical.

Neither Plethora, Max, Tommy, nor anyone else in the ICP ecosystem had anything bad to say about the original team behind Cipherproxy. All Max and Tommy did was defend themselves and they did it quite diplomatically given the circumstances. I still haven’t figured out why the original Cipherproxy team and people like you decided to pull these shenanigans. It didn’t benefit any of you in any way and probably hurt all of your reputations. It didn’t benefit the ICP community and may have just created more division. It was unnecessary and unjust. I’ve seen Max and Tommy indicate that they have zero interest in criticizing the original Cipherproxy team, but I certainly think they had the right to defend themselves.

Why did you choose not to have a conversation with them when they offered to help answer your questions?

Believe me, I had no desire or intention of reading your “Due Diligence” on this SNS. What you had to say was highly predictable. Plus it’s old news. Of course, you and @phasma both decided to tag me immediately after your OP. Hence, you pulled me into this conversation. If you don’t like my answers, simply don’t read them - you look silly when you start complaining about something so trivial.

I know, right. It’s quite odd. Perhaps it’s because I have worked with Max in the past in community building context. Hence, when I hear people say things that are inconsistent with my experience then I feel obligated to speak up and tell another side of the story. Please forgive me. I just wish I would have said something about that previously so you would have known.


As previously stated, Max & Tommy have reserved 80% of the treasury for themselves, “regardless of price fluctuation”. How do you think the “future of gaming” is going to be built on 80k ICP runway? Why is tooling receiving 80% of funding intended to be utilized for game growth? Your selectiveness in responses is very transparent.

This is not true.

Plethora claimed that Cipherproxy was responsible for Unity Game Engine development - which has since been proven a lie.

Plethora claimed Cipherproxy didn’t contribute a single line of code to IC Gallery - which has since been proven a lie.

Plethora claimed Cipherproxy went behind their back and utilized IC Gallery as a showcase to investors without permission - which has since been proven a lie.

Plethora claimed they kicked Cipherproxy off the IC Gallery project due to them “front running investors” - which has since been proven a lie.

Plethora claimed Cipherproxy received 100k in grants from DFINITY & failed to deliver - which has since been proven a lie.

Plethora has released multiple versions of this story, with these basic facts differing in each.

It’s very clear to see who is lying, and who is doing everything in their power to ensure they get away with it.

Any degree of objective comparison of the two sets of statements by the teams makes it abundantly clear that Plethora is in the wrong, and is simply doing anything possible to justify not paying a contractor - which you seemingly whole heartedly support.

Your narratives are hilarious.

After the story broke, and each side released their story, Cipherproxy reached out to me with proof of their claims.

I find it ironic that your accusing me of “colluding to produce a FUD Campaign” due to the fact that I looked at the receipts & proofs provided - which Plethora failed to provide, by the way.

This is quite frankly another bold lie - each of the Plethora statements are riddled with claims of Cipherproxys incompetency’s, shortcomings, and downfalls (without any evidence to back it up), when in reality, Cipherproxy fulfilled exactly what their obligations were (and have evidence to prove it).

This thread alone goes to show the effort Plethora put into slandering Cipherproxy:

Why was a conversation over text not acceptable? Why did it have to occur over a phone call or not at all?

Blindly following “friends” is never a good idea, didn’t your parents teach you that…? You are treating Plethoras word as gospel, when in reality, they have been disproven, and caught in multiple lies.

It’s not a good look when you double down on your bias towards corruption & malicious actions.


u should do one of these for Dragginz


I’ll do it: dragginz suffered a 51% attack. Don’t buy. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

I haven’t yet as it’s a “CAO” in comparison to “DAOs”:rofl: However, if you guys seriously wanted one I would :heart: (although for some reason, I can’t help but feel like your trolling)

Once I am up to date I am going to have to go back & do OpenChat & Kinic anyways.

Dragginz may not have gone through a traditional proposal but I don’t think due diligence hurts.

1 Like