Yes…as mentioned…different fragilities. One user, one vote DAOs are likely very interesting in some respects, but of course, you’ll have the issue we already see in democracies unless you further enhance the systems with something like zero-knowledge proving of both sides of a binary vote. Not proposing the SNS do this…but would be interesting to support it eventually! One token one vote has different issues. Most complex systems will have issues to be dealt with. It is certainly difficult to close the loop on these exceptions or defects, but that is the point of technology…once we have the loop closed, things advance quickly.
Exactly. It’s how it works from day one. Everything on the IC is governed by the NNS. It can try to be impartial to an extend.
I marely pointing how it works @Mico The NNS is changing SNSes weekly if you haven’t noticed. It’s not a bad thing, the world changes, SNSes need to evolve. Unknowns become knowns and what’s best for the ecosystem changes. NNS voters choose what is better for the IC in the long run, that’s why they lock for 8 years. If you start deleting canisters for no reason, that won’t be good long term. But if you have a reason and voters think it will be better for the IC - it can be done and will be done.
It’s how it works on other chains as well, but there miners will accept upgrade code that will get things done.
3 Likes
Weird how dfinity claimed something about upholding transparency but doesn’t disclose what issues needed to be resolved.
Seems political.
1 Like
Im also curious. Would like some transparency.
1 Like
Me too. Hopefully they respond so we can all know why they rejected.
1 Like
I am just guessing here but I assume it is probably something to do with the https://forum.dfinity.org/t/enhancing-network-decentralization-proposals-for-identity-verification-and-subnet-allocation/ as that has been a big talking point lately.
Maybe it is something that the node providers involved do not wish to publicly talk about as they have not mentioned anything either. I am sure all will come out with the wash sooner or later.
1 Like
Have I miss understood something about SNS’s? If I was to put my project on an SNS and wanted to make sure I had control I would hold 51% and lock it forever. I would remain the majority holder and direct the project with input from interested parties.
If I didn’t do that I would have to accept other people could take over
1 Like
Yes, as @Thyassa points out regularly devs and founders need to retain vp by allocating themselves the 51% and lock it, or run the risk of a whale taking over your work.
Weird. As in the post of the proposal they follow all the guidelines. Must be something more.
1 Like
There are other ways. You wouldn’t need to have 51%, that is just the most primitive method. It all depends what parameters are set up for the rewards and voting structure.
You can play around with the lock times and tokenomics to make it more appealing for people to lock for a much shorter amount of time than you.
At present what we have seen is:
SNS-1, which was a test token. After a year it was 51% purchased by @borovan years ago. Zero neuron fund participation, zero funds raised from public. Acquisition was a loss, but it was a statement to say that we truly believe the IC is where amazingly complicated multiplayer games should be. We not only bought it, but we locked it up for 888 years as we believe in our project and the IC. (To all the people who locked for stupidly long amounts of time even though there were no rewards etc. We will think of some way for you to get a benefit I promise!)
Then the SNS money train opened up. Neuron Fund was an interesting idea, but badly implemented.
Multiple SNS projects took max from neuron fund and then the “creators” dumped the token AND (this is the important bit here) abandoned their projects. Or at the very least have spent 2 to 3 years to provide maybe 2 weeks worth of development.
@borovan was only able to buy these tokens as nobody gave a damn about them. If they did, their value would be prohibitively high, or there would be no liquidity. We have been in this ecosystem since the start. We are aware of the squeaky wheels and are actively seeking out the good people who are developing. We only wish to create and strengthen the IC.
I think there should be a PokedStudio/PokedBots SNS. I am certain the community would support it and as long as you keep being Jon who always creates, there will be no issues.
7 Likes
Well…it is in the guide and generally SNS have been rejected when founders have more than 15%…so that that for what you will.
1.1.3. Voting power
Provide information about how voting power is distributed at genesis, potential attack vectors, and how the voting power might evolve over time.
It is considered to be best practice that swap participants have the majority of voting power at genesis. If the developers and seed investors have the majority together, then it should be clearly articulated why these two parties are independent.
If you have some way to read that document and come away with an impression that the ‘happy’ path is anything other than an SNS DAO should start off with founders having less than 51% and that one should expect and devs work toward increasing distribution, please let me know.
You also have articles like https://learn.internetcomputer.org/hc/en-us/articles/34088279488660-Tokenomics:
Voting power and decentralization
The voting power should be distributed over many, independent entities such that there is not one single or a few entities that can decide by themselves how the DAO evolves.
As mentioned above, participation in governance typically requires the staking of tokens for a certain amount of time. To incentivize long-term thinking and commitment, DAOs can provide more voting power to those token holders who stake for a longer time period. The configuration of the voting power should also consider the (initial) allocation of tokens, to ensure decentralization from the start. For example, it should be ensured that the voting power of the funding developer team is below 50% of the total voting power.
Find more information on how to configure voting rewards.
…so while your intent to hold 51% or it gets taken over may be fine, but you aren’t talking about an SNS really. Or if you want to argue that the assumption is “buyer beware,” then “we” sure are putting up some window dressing on reality with these docs and how things are launched.
3 Likes
I think the fact is that if @jonit created a Pokedstudio SNS, it would always be Pokedsdtudio SNS unless he lost interest and didnt care anymore.
All these SNSs that @borovan has “51% attacked” are essentially discarded projects.
Our actions are mainly born out of embarrassment when looking at the SNS page and its mainly just garbage.
2 Likes
Vapourware, garbage and governance attacks (WaterNeuron)
1 Like
Many SNS projects followed that path, only for Borovan to later complain that they were being taken over. In response, DFINITY introduced critical proposals, lowering the threshold needed to block treasuries. And now, here we are—Borovan and his wife are the ones taking over SNSs!
2 Likes
Cleaning up scams and replacing them with good projects, thank you very much.
Wow the Coinbase interns really are proving their worth here.
1 Like
Just aimless rich people antics. Honestly, try getting a life.
While I agree that that would be best, the words in the material and the guides to launch basically demand that if he wants an SNS he has to give up control. Unless you hack things to get the VP back as Alice did, if you want to launch a new SNS you give up control or someone comes and yells at you on the forum because you aren’t giving it up and then they reject your proposal.
Perhaps there is an unstated assumption that you should be able to “keep everyone organized and headed in the same direction” with only 15% VP, but I’d say we’re starting to see some pretty empirical evidence that things don’t really bear out that way. 
4 Likes
Yeah the SNS is about losing control and gaining trust from your community to lead the way.
With just 5% of the token I pass everything, because I work hard and people can see I’m trying to decentralise key areas of football.
OpenFPL / ICFC is no longer mine, that IP will forever belong to the Internet Computer.
3 Likes
Until Adam’s mood changes towards you. It doesn’t depend on anything other than his “mood”.
1 Like