Can DFINITY do something?

General DFINITY
41

Why are you completely ignoring the point? You are smart enough to understand what i wrote.

Two things can both be true: borovan can be taking actions that you disagree with from a moral perspective.

And:

Wtn can be posing a serious threat to the network. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe try this thought experiment: how would you feel about WTN if adam and jordan had 51% of the dao? That would be really bad right? Because that would give them 100% of the voting power of the entire WTN8year neuron leveraged by 6 month neurons of all rhe nICP holders. Which in the future you claim could be 10% of the nns vote. You dont think this is a problem?

We shouldnt rely on peoples reassurance that WTN is decentralized, the protocol should proportionately represent the actual votes of all holders, period.

42

HOT TAKE!

Buying tokens isn’t “attacking” a DAO.

5 Likes
43

Its impressive watching you defend anything and everything that has to do with adam.

Truly something special..lol

Your devotion is inspiring

1 Like
44

I didn’t ask, he offered :wink:

1 Like
45

It only takes 34% of active VP to block the treasury of an SNS—presumably at Adam’s behest. Rather farcical, really. And now there’s chatter about forcing liquidity as well.

1 Like
46

image
image410×623 29.1 KB

there’s no point 51% attacking a decent project. I got involved because I found out the project was being forced off the IC because they were located on a DOLR AI cursed subnet.

4 Likes
47

You’re forgetting the best part of SNS-1 was the airdrop, the free token for SNS-1 soul bound NFT holders. That made SNS-1 launch a success is my eyes.

I thought Kinic’s big airdrop to there NFT holders followed suit for there SNS launch.

More projects should have given back from the start like these projects instead of the pay-to-play drip airdrops that engagement farmers like OpenChat does with their monthly airdrop.

That’s how I feel. Give big at the start or go home. Mic drop

Never forget where we came from. SNS-1

48

People were saying SNSes were charity and they won’t put anything in, now they are complaining someone is “donating”

50

@vavram Good seeing your true colors. You are the one who is uninformed.

@Farat Looks like you are lagging behind your comrades. They started off boarding years ago

3 Likes
51

I literally said in this thread that i dont agree with adam using sns funds to buy other sns. Edit sorry wasnt this thread, theyre all devolving into the same nonsense these days, why do i bother?

Though i suppose its easier to attack my character than to attack the arguments i made, nice one. You should be a politician.

Look i can make lazy character attacks too:

Everyone in this thread: Adam is mean! He bought all the tokens!! Dfinity should do something about it! :cry:

Reasonable person: was anyone else buying the tokens?

Everyone in this thread: Well… no. :cry:

Reasonable person: where did the tokens come from?

Everyone in this thread: The holders sold
Them :cry:

Reasonable person: so what action do you want dfinity to take?

Everyone in this thread: freeze his neurons! Or Make his voting power not count! :smiling_face_with_horns:

Absolutely brilliant the lot of you.

4 Likes
52

It’s literally right there in my first post.

53

@farat
Sorry if it wasnt obvious i was making a disengenuous character attack similar to what @TheUltra16 did. You got caught in the crossfire.

Ill go back to fighting fair again. I agree with you that dfinity should make a statement.

they should rethink the sns whole framework, im not smart enough to figure out what needs to change but what we got aint working. You would think they got enough phds over there to figure out something.

But they dont give phds for common sense.

54

On one hand you make a case for Adam by saying it’s a free market and this is what happens when founders don’t lock their tokens.

On the other hand you say it’s bad if founders lock their tokens and hold the vp.

55

Ok what are we arguing about are we arguing about the takeover or are we arguing about WTN?

Because my problem with wtn has nothing to do with holders it has to do with the power wtn can exert outside of the dao as an attack vector on the whole network. Im really beating a dead horse here im not sure why i choose to engage with you when you make 0 attempt to engage with any of my points.

As a protocol wtn is quite brilliant, and the team is brilliant enough to make it resilient against such an attack. We will see here in a few months if the holders truly intend to make the vote representative of all the holders.

Notice at no point am i making the argument that someone shouldnt be allowed to buy more WTN. My argument is the protocol should be designed in such a way that this attack doesnt give a person the voting power in the nns of the entire DAO plus everyone holding nICP.

Summary of my arguments:

  1. People should be able to buy what they want and sell what they want.

  2. when people participate in voting, their votes should count.

You on the other hand have advocated for dfinity to “freeze” funds and strip voting rights @mico edit my bad freezing funds was @vavram

2 Likes
56

Not a comment on the rest of the thread or the intent of either poster. But one might ask, if a DAO can be 51% attacked then, by definition, isn’t it no longer decentralized(and thus a Directed Organization). Or put another way, is a DAO a DAO if it is ever possible to be 51% attacked? One might postulate that given enough time, any DAO would eventually be 51% attacked and thus, one might want to seek mechanisms that prevent it. I have no answer to this; I will only throw it out as a possibility. In a complex world, it may not be possible to create an airtight mechanism that ensures this, but perhaps it could at least be better than just letting it happen as soon as someone has the desire and the means. I think it is self-evident that no one has created the perfect DAO structure that is generalizable to many different use cases. Surely somewhere in game theory, crypto, due process, etc there is some mechanism that resists 51% and perhaps considering something a DAO when it makes no attempt to resist is self-deception.

Or from another angle, perhaps a DAO is not something that looks like a DAO now, but an organization that will always look like a DAO. A much harder problem to solve.

In the immortal words Qui-gon

1 Like
57

DAOs are just smart contracts with rules around something that is governed by its members. It will still be a DAO if it requires 1% to attack it.
SNSes are DAOs even with one member inside them, because they can’t change the rules, only some parameters.
Just to illustrate my point : You could make another DAO system inside SNSes - like some kind of NFT monarchy, with court, where each participant has different actions and a king that has veto. Then make it govern somethung. Doing so delegates control from the NNS to the SNS to something custom. If there are enough options around what’s critical, then your custom part will require 72% to be changed. Not saying it’s a good idea.
What WTN has is a custom part (the voting system) and they choose to use NNS mirrored proposals that allow 51% attack, intentionally or by mistake. But it’s as custom as an NFT DAO inside SNS will be. That’s not ‘the SNS framework’ it’s a hack reusing the SNS voting system for something else. You could make WTN proportionally represent voters and then require 72% for that system to be changed.

Why it may not be a good idea to drive something towards immutability: The rules are hard to change while the world around changes. Which could make something that was fair now, not fair later.

What Taggr has done is interesting. They have a DAO where members can change all the rules and the ledger, unlike SNSes which can’t. Both Taggr and SNSes are governed by the NNS. However it’s harder to change Taggr, because it’s custom - but the NNS excercised control by upgrading its canister when they got bricked. For Taggr to be a DAO, you need its members and voting power to be decentralized, unlike SNSes.

Requiring something more than simple majority is driving it towards immutability. You may also think that something is fair now and accept it, but if there are a lot of unknowns that come up later, it could turn out that it wasn’t fair and now you can’t change things anymore. Immutability is probably only good for very simple systems where their future can be easily predicted by all participants.

1 Like
58

Interesting. In a sense, I see what you are saying. The members control parameters and not the contract. The contract is decentralized because it cannot be changed, not because the membership is decentralized.

This makes sense, but is made confusing as hell since the SNS at least makes machinations that the membership is also “decentralized” or “democratized” via voting, 50% thresholds, limited max contributions, etc. Democratization is at least on the same vector as decentralization, so we often get our wires crossed. In reality, the SNS has so many knobs and widgets that you can fundamentally change the ledger and the rules(once you get enough VP). It may take time, but you can completely eliminate the say of others via age bonuses, minting tokens, etc. You can turn a test DAO into a game DAO, or a conference DAO into NFT DAO. Maybe you want this, but I’d consider that to be completely changing the assumed rules of the DAO. No one bought the SNS-1 token thinking they were about to be in a game DAO.

I guess what I’d say is that SNS DAOs are fragile to voting power. The “DAO intent” maintains some robustness as long as VP is spread, but once VP becomes concentrated, they can dissolve into something else(maybe this is a good thing, but certainly not what someone is putting forth when they try to raise through an SNS DAO and unlikely figuring into the equation by people putting money in…again..not a judgment about the final effect, jus that it likely goes against the assumption portrayed in an SNS swap…adaptation of a DAO may very well be its superpower…but not likely one people are thinking about when they commit).

There are likely structures that are robust in the face of VP concentration. I guess they are different contracts with different rules, but they are not the SNS. All of that to say(if we set aside the term ‘DAO’ for now) that the SNS is a lot of things, but it is NOT a smart contract that is robust against voting power, and thus you should not assume so. If anyone is under the impression that SNS are decentralized along the VP axis, they are mistaken. At the first layer, they are decentralized because you can’t easily change the ‘framework’ rules. At the second layer, they are decentralized along the NNS VP axis because the NNS can change all the rules.

No real point here other than it is interesting to think about. I guess if people want a Democratic Decentralized Autonomous Organization, they’ll need to look elsewhere(although those will have their set of fragilities). If you want something that is just straight up immutable, you have the option there too, just not on the IC to the extent that the NNS could uninstall your code.

2 Likes
59

It started as a test DAO - a blank canvas, so putting a game in it isn’t tricking anyone, just working as intended.

Looks like that is the only parameter that can be used for a party in control to stay in control if they also have simple majority and started with more tokens. Otherwise it’s a fair game. Alice could try to keep control messing with it and nobody else will be able to have a say in the matter or take it over. (Unless there is some additional logic around increasing age bonuses). However doing that will make it even more scammy than it is now for others who already are stripped of voting power. Then the NNS will have the moral right if not an obligation to change things around.

1 Like
60

The nns has no obligation or right to tamper with sns projects.

People buy into projects and should be doing their research. The nns can not act as a global protector for people not doing research and spending money.

1 Like