First open vote on the Drain the Swamp, to get rid of some random Node Provider. Instant 51% no. It’s so obvious.
I don’t have to provide evidence, I’m just going to take them down.
My argument:
People who hold x% of wtn should get x% of wtn vote in nns.
Your argument:
No its really fair the way it is cuz trust me bro.
1 Like
Strawman.
My argument has been that you haven’t even looked at the distribution of vp across the wallets, nor have you engaged with the community and seen how we discuss voting on topics and proposals.
You just blindly followed hot topics instead.
1 Like
I’ll make no comment to the moral, spiritual, or idealogical veracity of your statement, but technically it is completely false. The NNS, technically speaking, has COMPLETE right to “tamper” with SNS projects. The NNS can delete, replace, amend, ANY canister on the IC and is specifically programed to have this ability.
1 Like
So theoretically it could just destroy all trace of WaterNeuron?
Your proposal that even dfinity said was a gigantic nothing burger?
Ya know the ones that removed node providers that had been receiving no rewards and had no active nodes on the network? We all voted against you because it was a waste of governance.
1 Like
Oh no you didn’t, you voted against me because you knew I wouldn’t stop at the older node providers 
Right and Ability are two different things.
The sns is meant to be a launchpad for tokens to gain self governance away from central control. The nns absolutely has the ability to do this but that does not mean it has the right to do it.
No I followed dfinity and voted how they did. You just want someone to blame so you don’t look like a fool.
Any recent Node Provider proposals been rejected?
1 Like
If code is law, then it does have the right. If code is not law then we have to find an outside party to guarantee this. I’m not sure who you propose be this party, but it would certainly be an interesting discussion.
1 Like
I love how you try to bounce around to sound correct. Your original proposal that sparked you witch hunt is what we are discussing here.
You don’t like that you were mislead.
1 Like
This is irrelevant to the problem.
Lets say theoretically 4 years from now WTN grows and had 10% of the nns vote.
A critical highly contested proposal comes up and
55% of wtn holders vote adopt.
45% vote reject.
But in the nns 10% of the nns will vote adopt.
Those 55% of holders are stealing the votes of those 45% it doesnt matter if they colluded to do so or not the result is the same.
1 Like
The other chains also govern your code, they will just need the miners/validators to agree. And that has happened with “The DAO”, so there is always governance and no immutability outside the box.
How will that work to be really democratic and not become something else? Users prove their identity with something like a Worldcoin orb and do it every time they vote so we can be sure they didn’t sell their identity. Even then you will still have bribes and things will work similar to - we stopped canisters from holding neurons, just to get somene to use the http outcalls and ck to hold neurons inside canisters. It can actually become worse, because now you are allowing it to become oligarchy a lot faster.
Interesting point of view there. I have not thought of it this way.
I suppose this is why the wtn devs have a thread here on allowing for granular voting mechanics.
2 Likes
A little thought I am having,
Does this argument not apply to the nns governance as well? If we are classifying losing in a democratic vote as stealing the others votes then anytime a proposal passes the rejecters get their votes “stolen” as well.
We tend to argue that capital represents your vp. Why does this only apply as a positive when adam buys out rug pulls? Why does it apply negatively when its gone through two sns sales to allow for better decentralization (and a third later on)
1 Like
Fair, but the same can’t be said for the conference DAO becoming an NFT thing. No one who put tokens into that thought they were getting into swampies(even it it ends up being the best things since sliced bread).
Other system(some DAOs) have rage quit which lets you split them. I don’t know if this would work here or not, but might be worth a discussion. One thing that keeps some DAO on track is the threat of “most” of your capital picking up and leaving. Certainly it affects the calculus to try a “take over” a DAO if 40% of the treasury quits on you. Probably better mechanisms than rage quit…just an example.
1 Like
I do not claim adam buying out every sns is a positive. I would say that its a sign we are not healthy.
The question posed is what do you do about it? And the answer is someone else needs to want to buy or hold onto the projects. But sadly no one else does.
2 Likes
ICVC next! Hold on to your hats.
That we can at least both agree on.
1 Like