How do you see it becoming decentralized?
He locks up the tokens to acquire the vp.
Also investing means people must research and learn what is good and bad. That is the way it works. Most projects will fail but that doesn’t mean you were scammed.
(Yes some will scam, but that’s what you learn from)
But my main point here is to learn why falsely claiming you stand for decentralization but then pushing for a centralized take over makes no sense and is dishonest at best.
If the project is successful meaning there is value to end users in the real world (or in cyberspace) gained by purchasing the token this will naturally lead to decentralization through demand for the token. Because adam will eventually sell some of his tokens he cant just light money of fire forever.
If the project fails adam will be the bagholder.
Should it be possible what adam did? Thats up for debate and these are discussions dfinity should have when rethinking the sns framework.
Its just really weird that we have a problem with what adam is doing 100% transparently. When there are multiple other sns who had actors buy 85 to 96% of the project through complete obfuscation.
You’re making a lot of assumptions for him on selling when his goal is to own and control these other daos.
My issue is people wanting decentralization while cheering for centralization.
I’m starting to think people are blinded by the green candles that come with the initial take over.
Btw Adam was the one who was the hidden whale investor in a majority of the sns sales. (Only became public after the first takeover)
Like i said i dont hold any of these projects, so no im not blinded by green candles.
All i know if the current holders didnt want to hold (they sold). And nobody except adam is buying. Why do you suppose that is?
I guess my issue is with his anger towards one specific project where the holders are active and staking. So he is trying to ruin credibility of the founders through baseless attacks so he can acquire a majority vote.
Thats like fine, if its your opinion. Dont know how anyone can possibly defend these alice tokenomics. Other than to say it was someone else.
Read proposal 9 and you will see that Robert gave credit for the idea to @King_Valhalla05 in the bobdotfun chat group on Telegram.
Here is the specific message that persuaded Robert as linked by another member of the community here.
That post has 6 edits, so hopefully you are looking at the right edit when presenting your observations. I think you are doing some funny analysis on your times, but whatever, it’s not worth getting into the minutia with you. I wanted to make sure the edit that shows the CodeGov ALICE neuron information was in one of the early posts in the thread for better visibility. We had already been talking about starting a CodeGov ALICE known neuron for the community because the first proposal 134701 had already failed for known reasons and it seemed like there would be a second proposal 134769 that DFINITY would not block (no NF contribution, BOB canisters added to the SNS control, etc.). This was all easily predictable if you were following the conversations on the forum.
This is very consistent with my history of trying to help advance decentralization by offering a reliable and credible known neurons for people to follow if they value decentralization. Most people tend to follow the dev team, yet a common goal of a DAO is to achieve a decentralized distribution of voting power. I believe that we need more known neurons to step up (NNS and SNS) to fill this role. This is what I helped do back when we started the Synapse neuron and now what I do with the CodeGov neurons. I decided to pursue a CodeGov ALICE neuron because there were people asking me to do it who wanted to see options for the community.
There is nothing to fix at this time. The SNS parameters are exactly where they need to be. All we have right now is Adam trying to take it over with no specific plans in mind except apparently a vendetta against me personally. Hence, he is trying to change the SNS parameters and create these new narratives through people like you in order to help give himself an advantage. In the end, the proposals will execute according to whichever side gets more votes. He is welcome to try to take over ALICE, but I’m not seeing anything wrong with it at this time and he is not giving the majority of the voting power in the SNS any good reason to follow his lead yet.
ALICE is not a ‘dot fun’ token. It is an SNS that owns responsibility for the BOB canisters. I suspect Robert proposed an 8 year lock time because it is consistent with the NNS lock period. Every neuron created at SNS launch had a 0 or 1 day dissolve delay in order to ensure the tokens were as liquid as possible, so increasing the max dissolve delay required a max age bonus of 400% and a max dissolve delay bonus of 900% in order to incentivize the most committed ALICE governance participants to quickly max lock some of their tokens. It was effective enough to convince enough people to increase their dissolve delay. Personally, I saw it as a risk and started commenting about it on the forum to raise awareness. Here is an example, but there are several more.
Follow that discussion thread and you will see that DFINITY indicated that they don’t want to make this change for now, but that was before all of this SNS takeover that Adam has been doing. It will be interesting to see if that remains their stance.
Ah yes, the real reason why you felt the need to cast shade in my direction on this topic. I disagreed with you about your idea and tried to present my opinion about a better solution to the problem, but instead of having a productive conversation it just devolved into talking past each other. Reasonable people can disagree and still remain civilized. We don’t have to get offended and start taking cheap shots. I’m happy to revisit that conversation any time, but I do still think there is a bigger problem that can be solved with lower hanging fruit that would be more impactful to WTN voting power distribution and should be pursued first. I’m sorry my opposition to your idea turned you off.
This is one of the few comments you have made recently where I agree. You definitely have a tendency to follow along with anything that Adam says, and this one might even be an argument that he would make, but at least you are doing it now in a diplomatic and civilized way.
Projects should not go after an SNS until after it has established itself. When SNS projects first started, there were a lot of people who believed that the NNS should not have say in it whatsoever, so I think we ended up in a place where the NNS only wanted minimal oversight of the legitimacy of an SNS so that the “market” can decide instead based on whether or not it raises enough funds. Of course, the Neuron’s Fund has a role in the problem and DFINITY has gone through multiple rounds of trying to correct how it is implemented. They have always been slow to change and usually that happens only after the community starts making waves of discontent. It’s just the nature of the beast. I think there is a role for incentivizing known neurons to put more time and effort into due diligence on all proposal types including SNS launches. I hope to see those incentives come out sometime in the next waves of improvement that we see for the SNS & Neuron’s Fund framework. There is no doubt in my mind that it will continue to improve over time.
If you pay attention to his strategy, he appears to be targeting the SNS projects with enough of a treasury where he can use those tokens to fund his next takeover. Some of the early SNS projects that he doesn’t like still have very large treasuries.
If you can link any proposal where adam withdrew funds from an sns and used it to fund another buy, by all means post it. (Spoiler you cant because it didnt happen).
I am confident that adam will divert those treasury funds towards artists and builders who are actually going to make something. If you have proof of anything otherwise post it.
I hope you are right. It’s cool that you are willing to trust him. Sometimes it is difficult to tell when he is joking and when he is serious since he casts so many aggressive accusations and has such a degen style.
I just saw someone post this in the bobdotfun chat group. Looks like something that Adam posted somewhere on the forum recently. Like I said, hard to tell if he is joking or serious, especially since this is an edit.
I disagree that Alice DAO’s current SNS parameters are optimal.
As @infu noted, these settings allow the Dev team to maximize voting power (up to 50x) with minimal tokens, while regular holders have little incentive to stake for 8 years (no voting rewards). Alice DAO is effectively under the Dev team’s full control, enabling them to pass any proposal.
The reality is worse: The Dev team has already pushed through SNS parameters that heavily favor them, while most holders remain unaware they’ve been stripped of voting power.
In Proposal 31, you criticized @borovan’s Proposal 28—but I see Proposal 28 as fair. It makes it harder for 8-year neurons to gain 50x voting power:
Right now, undissolved 8-year neurons have 18x voting power (10×1.8).
This seems to be the case with every SNS DAO. The only difference here is that eccentric parameters are being used as excuse to try to take over the DAO.
Allowing hostile takeovers of DAOs is ultimately detrimental to the health of the ecosystem.
When devs monopolize voting power through questionable SNS parameters while keeping most community members in the dark, their true intentions become questionable. Is this really for the project’s best interest?
Thanks for offering your opinion in a civilized tone. I understand where you are coming from and can appreciate the concern. If nothing else, I hope this thread does awaken the 24% of tokens that are in neurons with 0 - 1 year dissolve delay to the fact that their voting power is small relative to the voting power of the 71% of tokens that are in neurons with 8 year dissolve delay. If they are staking for governance rewards, then they need to understand that the 8 year neurons are heavily advantaged compared to the 0 year neurons.
Why do you characterize this as the Dev team is under full control? Isn’t it more accurate to say that anyone who has chosen to stake for 8 years is at the same advantage? As @infu showed, 71% of staked tokens have decided to increase their dissolve delay to 8 years, which is 3x the amount of tokens that have chosen to leave it at 0 years.
The two largest neurons by far belong to Adam.
If you think I am the dev team, then I can assure you I am not. I’m also not one of the whales of the ALICE SNS. Even though the CodeGov ALICE SNS triggers a fair amount of voting power when we vote, all of it is people who have decided to follow our neuron. There is very little stake in the actual CodeGov neuron. The neuron exists for governance participation only and we try to set a good example for the community and give them a Followee option that helps advance decentralization of the SNS. It’s really not very complicated. Those who trust us will follow us and those that don’t will not follow us. If we do something that people don’t like, then they are welcome to follow someone else. The goal is not voting power. The goal is to advance decentralization. To be honest, I wish more people would do the same thing.
I definitely do not like it when a dev team submits a proposal that has not already been discussed by the community in advance. That is certainly happened here, and I definitely saw the risk that creates, which is why I have been trying to advocate that the Manage Nervous System Parameters proposal type should be a critical proposal (as referenced above). However, I don’t think it is a true statement to say that most holders remain unaware they’ve been stripped of voting power. I raised this awareness in the ALICE community and many others picked up on it as well. It has been thoroughly discussed. I think this is the reason why 3x more tokens are staked for 8 years that they are staked for 0 years. The community did a really good job of spreading the word. I’m sure a lot of people still missed it, but it’s not because the community didn’t try to get the word out.
What makes you think most community members are in the dark and that devs are trying to monopolize voting power? Are you in the ALICE community? What is your TG username? If you were to drop in and start asking around, I doubt you would find many people who agree with these claims. In what communities have you been hearing these claims and why do you think they are facts? Here is a link to the ALICE community. Feel free to drop in and ask questions any time.
Projects in early stages need a centralized entity pushing the project forward.
Look at Kong swap for example they own ~70 percent of the available vp during the launch and have delivered the most updates and improvements to the project.
But the case you’re making seems to suggest that as long as the attacker is transparent his intentions are to take the majority of vp and centralize it for himself, then it’s okay.
Btw I’m not sure if you saw but Adam took icp from the trax sns treasury and has been using it to buy elna and boom dao tokens. I’m not sure Adam is so transparent as the proposal said “I will return it, I promise.”
So I think the solution is to research the team invest in people with a good idea. And to stop rooting for these power grabs going on under the guise of removing scammers(devs) from the ecosystem.
Here is the proof of transfer then instant buys and deposits into lp for purchasing.
All viewable on ic explorer ( filter date is 04/14/2025-04/14/2025)
This appears to be an example of @borovan withdrawing funds from an SNS and using it to buy another SNS. TRAX Proposal 136 was submitted today by a neuron (10e99) that is verifiably (TRAX get_neuron method) controlled by a principal (ljxsi) that is verifiably owned by @borovan (BoomDAO get_neuron method). This treasury transfer proposal was adopted by immediate supermajority decision and moved 23,000 ICP (ea014) from the TRAX treasury into an account (fe096) that is verifiably (query jrnhz-6ekxv-2fffs-wfcgt-l3pe7-456id-heznf-xyf64-nykjq-4jyso-zae with the accout_identifier method) owned by @borovan. That account is moving tokens into at least 2 other accounts every few minutes in 125 ICP increments, which has the appearance of refilling a Neutrinite vector account that may be engaged in defi activities.
There is no doubt about the transfer of the SNS funds into this account and the fact that @borovan initiated the proposal and owns the account. I can’t be certain about the use of the funds in that account. I’d like to know if you have a better explanation for how and why the funds in that account are making repetitive transactions so frequently. Perhaps @borovan would be willing to explain in more detail.
Touche i dont agree with adam doing this. (Using sns treasuries to buy other sns)
However the trax founder is in his discord and apparently is not bothered at all by these developments. So theres that. Apparently he took out a loan, as you can see in the proposal text.
Have you heard the saying “ just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”?
Adam can take over any of these sns projects and continue this. His initial focus on previous known scams is now showing the reality of the situation.
He is using the daos to further take over other daos to drag everything under his control.
Im not happy with the situation we are in. Do i want adam to control every dao? No. But the reality of the situation is we have a bunch of crap daos that no one wants to own. Which is why hes able to acquire them.
Hopefully in the future NNS voters and dfinity will not approve SNS projects that dont have any demand or mvp so we dont get into messes like this.
