Can’t say for certain why @borovan wants power, but considering his attempts at taking over other SNSs since Dragginz only started recently after he asked on this forum for his funds to be returned to him, current evidence hints at him just wanting to get his money back and some nice profit without caring what happens to anyone else.
The only way you decentralize a DAO is by buying. Once its leaders do something that proves they have ill intentions, buying in and taking them out is the only thing you can do really. From what I’ve seen, Adam cares about the eco and wants it to prosper. There are other people who off-board projects and apparently in Alice off-board retail users as well.
3 Likes
Here’s the thing:
If the devs keep control, it’s not a DAO, they were just raising funds (which would make the tokens more like stock than governance tokens and thus an illegal security). If the project can’t survive without the founders having full control, the project wasn’t ready for DAO/SNS - period.
Take Taggr as an example. The founder has a large amount of tokens, but no where near enough to control votes (the nakamoto coefficient is currently 9 but it was well over 20 before a few whales exited). There was no SNS, so no money came from the community - the app just produces its own revenue. Now that the founder - while still active daily - is not as focused on development, other devs in the community have stepped up, and the DAO has rewarded them with governance tokens for their contribution (even top testers were rewarded).
On the other hand, centralized projects (for example, corporations like Apple, Google, and Microsoft) make tons of money for investors. So community members who “invested” in SNS projects without understanding what a DAO is want strong team leadership so they can get rich quick.
In short, the problem with SNS is that most people don’t understand what a DAO is, how governance tokens work, or how far we are from a world where anything on ICP can gain mass adoption. Most are greedy gamblers and ego maniacs who just want to make money and influence others.
Not sure if this is the answer you were looking for but I can’t get my neurodivergence under control today, so here we are 
P.S. This comment is about no one in particular. If someone see themself in anything I wrote, it’s not my fault they have a guilty conscience. If someone feels the need to flag this post, what they really need to do is take a long look in the mirror and ask why they’re afraid of hearing the truth.
5 Likes
Pumping smaller SNSs makes it more likely for people who own a stake in multiple SNS to vote with him when he proceeds to attack SNS with big treasuries.
To be honest bro in all projects within the ecosystem even icp itself . I only made profit from SNS-1 when borovan acquired it .IPCC hodlers also in profit.
Can you show a single SNS projects that give profits to its investors? It’s been 3 years and almost all got rekt.
Defi in IC were dying and borovan sacrificed millions of $$s to save retails and give life to DEFI .
2 Likes
Why is ALICE on the list of SNS projects that you want to remove/repurpose? In what way does ALICE harm the ecosystem?
Thank you for this explanation. I always appreciate learning more about vectors. Do you have any insight as to why Adam’s wallet (fe096) is transferring ICP to other wallets in 125 ICP increments every few minutes? It seems to be automated. What would that pattern likely indicate?
They are definitely not the only people who are extremely passionate about the IC. They are attacking others who are also extremely passionate about the IC and have been working for years to help build up the ecosystem.
I appreciate your opinion, but I have done nothing wrong and have no need to redeem anything. I stand up for what I believe in and will continue doing so.
This is an interesting idea, but one problem is that the node machines that are required are very expensive. Perhaps if the specs for a Gen3 node were a lot less expensive and specialized relative to Gen1 or Gen2, then they could become more affordable where the remuneration schedule would enable investment in them to be fully justified within a 2 year period. That would be awesome actually. In my observation, node providers are businessman first and foremost. If the specs and remuneration were scoped for a 2 year turnover, then I’m sure they would be interested in this idea. It would also enable a lot more people to participate like you said.
I agree. Which is why we need more people and organizations to become more involved in SNS projects and to offer reliable and credible contributions to the governance system. It’s the only way we can achieve true decentralization where the people who are trusted to vote on changes actually perform due diligence and vote in a credible and reliable way. This is the whole purpose of CodeGov and I wish there were more. I wish the governance framework of the NNS and SNS would actually incentivize more participants so we can achieve true decentralization instead of the only practical option being to follow the dev team. It’s self defeating for a DAO when the only practical option for governance participants is to follow the dev team.
1 Like
I agree that DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are misunderstood.
Decentralized - smart contracts run on a blockchain. In SNS case, it’s the NNS governing the smart contracts.
Autonomous - self-operating, automatic.
Organization - it has rules and members.
Founding SNS devs are not in control of the SNS DAOs. The NNS is.
They can’t change the ledger or how the rules work, or do anything about the members.
They also don’t have control of the treasury. It takes 28% vp to stop a treasury transfer. None of the SNS devs have enough power to single-handedly transfer treasury funds after launch.
DAOs don’t automatically mean democracy, where there are millions of users with equal voting power. The contracts are still decentralized and result in a DAO, no matter how many members there are and what voting power they have, since they can’t change all the rules. These contracts can decentralize members as well, but this happens when there are enough people who care and don’t sell their voting power.
When someone gets into a DAO, they aren’t investing in the founders, but putting tokens in a smart contract, so these can result in something built and later governed by the SNS. It doesn’t mean the founders are going to take these tokens out. It could be someone else.
1 Like
No one’s interested in Mimic, just glance at the forum post. Honestly, it’s time to come back down to earth, focus on building your product, and let the rest of the community get on with their work in peace.
1 Like
The thing is, there is no guarantee nodes run on brand new hardware with the exact spec. We’ve checked - nodes cost around 12k$. With refurbished parts 6k$. What seems to cost the most are the SSD drives raid. There is no guarantee right now someone isn’t running a node on a single cheap HDD. In fact you can very likely run nodes on 2k$ hardware. At that point NPs will be getting 100% ROI in 40 days. With TEE this will change, since the software can check what the hardware is and the software can’t be modified.
OK, so maybe the problem is that there are so many Gen1 machines and their specs were very specific and didn’t allow much deviation. If Gen2 specs are generic enough to enable node providers to make a good business case for a 2 year stint, then perhaps they would be interested in your idea. My interpretation has always been that Gen2 specs are still too stringent, but I trust you know what you are talking about on this one. I know there are people very familiar with the technical situation who really want to see the specs for Gen3 to come down to much more cost effective levels, probably for all the same reasons that concern you regarding how it can improve decentralization.
Please explain what you’re doing with trax treasury? I’ve shown transactions of Adam using other peoples funds to buy out other daos.
What have the founders done in icpcc, Alice, and other daos that show this quality?
Just because you or Adam don’t like things doesn’t automatically mean scam. Plus there is little to no evidence ever presented by either of you.
On top of this we have @Thyassa claiming the way to avoid a 51% attack is for founders to lock up their own tokens. But when founders do this you and Adam go on the attack of “it’s not decentralized enough.” (Only to projects you can’t control or you would be raging over kongswap.)
2 Likes
You can scroll to the top and see what the problem is. If you think there isn’t one. That is alright, it’s your own opinion. I don’t think I need to argue with you over hundred posts to change your personal opinion on all posts I make. There are other people around too.
3 Likes
This is a solid perspective @FGhostwriting
1 Like
I agree, I have said much of this over the past year as well.
I think my issue right now is everyone cheering for a hostile takeover of every dao they lost money on. Investing isn’t easy and it takes time to refine the skill. Adam got scammed a few times because he hasn’t learned this skill just yet. Instead of learning and growing he is throwing tantrums and calling every single dao a scam outside of dragginz and the other daos he has acquired.
He is using this to create an opportunity for him to grab the power of all the daos and to control the ecosystem. On one end we have adam arguing for a “decentralized vote” while buying 51% of most daos who provided liquidity on the market. And on the other end we have adams wife saying “If the sns project wants to avoid being 51% then the devs should lock their tokens up” creating another form of centralization. So the reality becomes if the devs do not lock their tokens and retain control, adam will come in and buy the dao to turn it into something for his other centralized dragginz project.
4 Likes
Correct - enterprise NVMe SSD disk prices jumped in price early 2024 and have remained high
Incorrect - there are hardware and other spec compliance checking scripts within the ic-os binary built and imaged onto an installation USB key which setup-os runs to confirm the target hardware machine minimum specs before installation of host-os (on the hardware machine) and guest-os (on the replica virtual machine) and registration with the NNS. Single and aggregate disk minumum size are specific at line 33 and checked by function verify_disks() in following setup-os script
ic/ic-os/components/setupos-scripts/check-hardware.sh at master · dfinity/ic · GitHub
Hacking the setup-os scripts to build a custom corrupted image is probably doable with req skills but the runtime and internal monitoring of host-os will almost certainly make this evident to MMS external monitoring services and would also probably cause a hard fail operationally as an IC replica.
@sat could you comment on the observability of a possible hacked setup-os install of host-os being viable and undetectable in practice?
Implementing TEE in the ic-os runtimes will work for isolating the guest-os VM from its host-os but wont do much to prevent a hacked setup-os and/or host-os on the hardware machine.
What would help preventing unobserved tampering with the ic-os boot process would be to implement Secure Boot and/or Measured Boot (Google Search) … no small engineering effort required
4 Likes
Hi Borovan,
What’s your intention after gaining a controlling stake on Alice DAO?
Could you elaborate more on how you intend to make Alice great again?
How would you use the DAO treasury to help on that vision?
Best wishes for all🫡
1 Like
Fax. TVL is king. 
ICP learning.