BoomDAO Neurons Stripped of Voting Power

[marcio]

you are the only one dreaming with this kind of stuff, believe me, lol

[borovan]

Warning - Boom DAO Red Flag!

Hey guy, it is very clear to the timeline of this thread that it went off topic when you joined the conversation. Fortunately the foul contributions of your cohorts @ivan_uncensored and @boomerfinity we removed due to their egregious nature. Otherwise this thread would be a lot worse. It’s a really a shame that you ruined this thread because there were some very good contributions to this discussion. I would respect the decision if the moderators choose to lock this thread as requested by se…

Wenzel was part of the scam. @Apollon

[ICPdotAI]

Serious question: when you say ‘trust me’, should we start running?

[Amer]

This sounds highly irresponsible from the original DAO leadership. If they couldn’t defend their DAO or deliver, why would investors trust them again? They hadn’t expected it, as the ICP ecosystem is low on liquidity?
The new leader sounds serious, locking up his money for 8 years! He’ll either deliver what he promises or get bought out, which is a win-win for investors, far better than before..

[Caesar]

I’ll continue to support CodeGov — I trust @wpb

[wpb]

Hey @leadership

Will you please explain why @borovan is still allowed to get away with harassment and disrespectful, unsubstantiated, ad hominem attacks? You made a public statement about 9 days ago indicating that you intend to enforce forum rules, but it’s not clear that this has been done yet when it comes to @borovan. Why is he not held to the same standard as everyone else?

@Leadership

Criticism and disagreement are essential elements of a healthy debate. We simply ask that arguments rely on facts and that allegations be supported by verifiable evidence.

@Leadership

We plan to extend the existing forum communication guidelines as follows:

• Extending “Ad hominem attacks” in the list of inappropriate criticism patterns to “Ad hominem / witch hunting attacks”
• Extend the “Respect each other …” pattern to “Respect each other. Don’t harass or impersonate people. Don’t expose information of others unless it’s strictly relevant for your argument. Negative claims about people or projects should be supported by evidence, and be presented in a respectful way.”

This guideline is the basis for our forum moderation efforts.

These quotes by @Borovan below are from today alone. This is the kind of harassment I receive every time I post on the forum. When I occasionally respond to him, it is typically to provide explanations and clarifications regarding his claims and I always try to be professional about it. Yet he continues to make unsubstantiated accusations that I have nefarious intent. Do you have any intention of enforcing the rules that you have created for how the community should engage on the forum? When will those rules apply to @borovan?

@borovan

Wenzel, we know you’re destabilising the IC.

There’s currently a 3 sigma lower bound on my IQ at 510. This is instant hyperdimensional thought, do you want to keep messing around when it’s obvious you’re losing.

@borovan

Wenzel was part of the scam. @Apollon

@borovan

Boom DAO was a scam, supported by Wenzel. That’s all you need to know.

Stop following CodeGov ASAP

@borovan

I only learned they could go up that high by seeing the great work you’d done on the ALICE Neuron, Wenzel. I’m sure you also advised the WaterNeuron team into keeping a vice-like grip on their 64% share.

[Caesar]

I agree with you, wenzel

[tiago89]

Great analysis, thanks for taking the time to put together such a thorough report, Wenzel.

It seems both entities tried to exploit the min/max dissolve delay and age bonus mechanisms, disregarding the will of individual token holders. Max and Tommy notably reduced the dissolve delays to also gain VP advantages.

There were a few motion proposals to decide the direction, but neither party abstained.

I agree with changing Params proposal to critical, and have two more suggestions:

• On the NNS dApp, it should be more clearly indicated which topics are considered critical when setting follows.
• SNS Projects should be able to configure other types as Critical (especially the setting and running of custom functions). For example Water Neuron has nICP ledger as SNS canister dApp. So there could be an attack vector on minting / inflation, etc.

Thanks again for shedding light on this, @wpb.

[wpb]

@tiago89

It seems both entities tried to exploit the min/max dissolve delay and age bonus mechanisms, disregarding the will of individual token holders. Max and Tommy notably reduced the dissolve delays to also gain VP advantages.

Any chance you could explain this further? I’m aware that it is possible to decrease the max dissolve delay and that makes it possible to have neurons with a dissolve delay that are larger than the max allowed. However, the voting power boost is capped at the max dissolve delay no matter what it is. So going from a higher to a lower max dissolve delay just helps the neurons with a smaller dissolve delay because it gives them a bigger fraction of the dissolve delay range. In what way is this something that can be exploited? Perhaps my understanding is incorrect. If there is an exploit here, then I agree we should talk about it and ask that it be resolved as well.

@tiago89

On the NNS dApp, it should be more clearly indicated which topics are considered critical when setting follows.

I agree and hope this is being solved with the upcoming SNS framework changes.

@tiago89

SNS Projects should be able to configure other types as Critical (especially the setting and running of custom functions). For example Water Neuron has nICP ledger as SNS canister dApp. So there could be an attack vector on minting / inflation, etc.

I’m pretty sure this one is in progress. Although I don’t think SNS Topics (plan and design) have been fully implemented yet. They may have been delayed due to the fact that @borovan has also weaponized the Set Topics for Custom Proposals type for NFID (and others). This proposal type was created recently and DFINITY has asked all SNS projects to set their proposal topic for all their custom proposal types ASAP. However, it is a critical proposal, which means it doesn’t roll up under the All Non-Critical Proposals catch all and it only requires 1/3 to reject. At the decentralization swap @borovan made an 8.15% commitment to NFID, which gave him 20.67% total voting power without buying any new tokens. That’s enough to single handedly achieve the 1/3 reject since NFID had such a high commitment from Neurons Fund, gave a VC that won’t/can’t participate in governance a lot of tokens, and set their dev neurons up with a vesting schedule that prevents them from increasing the dissolve delay parameters of their own neurons. It’s another unfortunate situation enabled by the SNS framework where @borovan is taking advantage. He is blocking all necessary proposals for that SNS, so it seems that DFINITY may have delayed to roll out of the SNS topics feature where each SNS can set all their topics as either normal or critical.

[Mico]

Don’t forget this one.

https://forum.dfinity.org/t/from-pub-to-protocol-are-daos-the-next-chapter-in-how-we-organize/44296/6?u=mico

[WebTreeSoftwareSolut]

Hey mico u been pretty quiet today, you feeling ok buddy? Just wanted to check on my bestie.

[marcio]

I got a few in my direction as well…

[Mico]

It’s the weekend. I got stuff to do and a pregnant wife making sure I’m doing it

[WebTreeSoftwareSolut]

Congrats buddy thats awesome!

Everyone around here needs to lighten up.

[daeitus]

that’s really great news. glad to hear it.