Is there a possibility of the creation of a community server and Nodes that is owned via an SNS DAO? I can see this would help with decentralisation of node hardware. No one would be allowed to have a majority stake. Yes I know it can still be gamed but could be a step forwards to decentralisation.
The server rewards would be returned to SNS holders via ICP rewards SNS tokens or even burned according to how the DAO chooses
3 Likes
Yes, I think this would be possible with some modest adjustments to how the NNS handles node provider reward disbursals. There’s a suggested approach here →
You may also be interested in checking out cICP. I think that’s the first initiative that’s trying to make this sort of thing a reality.
3 Likes
Hopefully they find a way to distribute the 90% vp held by 3-5 wallets before they do make it a reality.
Even if that doesn’t happen, this would be a massive step forward for the IC and would pave the way for similar solutions to follow suit. There are numerous hurdles to tackle to make this a reality though.
If they stay 90% controlled then there is no community owned nodes.
It’s essentially just using cicp as a fundraising mechanism to buy themselves nodes instead of reporting a business loan
Where you have one user depositing a majority of the icp to buy these nodes who themselves are applying to be node providers.
It’s just like the issue of ubo and node clusters but trying to avoid regular restrictions
This is a thread about making community funded nodes possible (such that the community can benefit from their share of the rewards). There are many potential implementations. What we need is the groundwork in place to make it possible (it’s currently not possible in a robust or reliable way - in my opinion). But it would be a beneficial move for the IC to facilitate this sort of stuff in general.
2 Likes
It would be interesting if this happens but we should nail down the current node provider rules.
Cicp currently doesn’t fit the bill of community owned nodes.
I think it will require a rework of the sns launchpad to ensure a max contribution per verified user to avoid one user using multiple wallets to buy control of the dao.
Can we stick to talking about how we could form a community owned Node?
I’m thinking of a very simple set up where no staking is involved.
Just buying the machine hosting it and receiving the payments which are then after costs distributed to DAO members.
I’m guessing we have an SNS fundraiser and the proceeds go to buying the node machine but also to hosting it and maintenance etc.
A elected DAO member could host the machined and the DAO pay costs.
Does the nature of the Node machines mean they must stay in one location?
Could the Dao add node machines at a later point?
If so there may be an additional incentive to hold the Community DAO tokens.
Would we need KYC to make sure no one uses multiple identities?
What additional complications could arise?
1 Like
Yes.
The main issue is the initial raise of funds.
If people decide to sell to one user after launch then that is the free market.
It would have to fall in line with current node provider rules where one person can not own a majority stake in the dao that is a current provider themselves.
In a traditional business that threshold is 25% but in the dao world we have seen 22% vp be enough to cripple the dao.
We need to discover what is an acceptable max vp for one user where they can not cripple the entire dao by rejecting critical proposals.
Sell the SNS tokens? Yes that is an issue.
Maybe lockups and other mechanisms can be employed that limit the sale of tokens.
What about sbt instead of sns tokens?
And or enforcing a longer lock period at launch with non transferable tokens?
Maybe a 3 year initial lock on all neurons at launch? That way it gives the nodes time to start earning profits before people can sell to others
1 Like
I think the concept of ownership is more complicated. I think it’s simpler if you stick to community funded nodes (and an NNS-recognised right to benefit from those node rewards - and nothing else). Whether or not the physical machines themselves are owned by the DAO isn’t too important in my opinion (and just introduces unnecessary complications and complexities). For instance, the DAO shouldn’t have any actual control over how the nodes are managed (that would only hurt the initiative due to an unavoidable need to strictly consider clustering and node limits).
1 Like
That’s what the neuron fund should be used for imo.
That paired with your idea of on chain loan providing for node purchases
2 Likes
The SNS fundraiser would still need to cover the cost of the nodes though, or do we just pay rent to an existing node provider?
It kind of sounds like we reached the point where the “funded” project would be best used for this.
A node provider creates a campaign then the community can fund it and get a nft. That nft would earn them rewards from the node while giving ownership to the node provider.
1 Like
Thanks @Mico, I agree. I think this would be a much better use for the Neurons Fund. The community hasn’t been very good at appraising which SNS’ are worthy recipients of the Neurons Fund. I think this is mostly because SNS’ come in many shapes and sizes and there’s no easy way for the community to inspect them and gauge whether or not the Neurons Fund would be well-spent.
However something like what we’re fleshing out and proposing in this discussion is much more specific and limited in scope (and should therefore be much easier for the community to appraise proposals to make use of those funds). The sorts of things to check would always be the same (and wouldn’t be anywhere as hard or specialised as reviewing SNS dapp code and/or establishing market fit):
Interestingly the Neurons Fund has been suspended for use by SNS launches.
I think the Neurons Fund should instead be repurposed. It’s always going to be the target for abuse if applied to SNS launches (in my opinion).
1 Like
I don’t think it’s a great idea for the setup costs to be covered entirely by a fund raising mechanism. There will always be the danger that the node provider just runs away with the funds.
No, we cant do that. Nodes/servers still need a person who operates them, pay bills. Even if somehow node operator gives Nodes to DAO, than He most likely loses money with that decision.
Even if someone makes non profit organisation, people in there want paycheck. Not much money will be left for DAO members.
In DAO, most VP held will be on 2-5 wallets who say how many rewards are taken and given out.
Conclusion is that its not worth doing.
Sorry I don’t buy that argument at all. The SnS fund raises covers set up costs you just paying then to run the nodes , if you are telling me being a node provider is mo profit making you are having a laugh
1 Like
I think they are ways to ensure that wont happen. The node operator would probably need to make a stake or some in addition to being fully kyc’d . Payments would be via immutable smart contracts and if he/she ran away with the hardware they wouldn’t be able to run the node
2 Likes