there is this proposal to transfer a neuron supposedly to “punish” someone. there is literally no evidence presented, it appears to have spelling errors where it makes accusations. i have no idea who any of these people are, nor is there any links provided. and yet it seems to garner near 50% of yes votes?!
scary NGL. how can any serious crypto investor take Dfinity and ICP seriously with stuff like this.
Do you think Larry Fink and BlackRock want to lose funds because a bunch of fools decide “hey lets Punish Larry for being whatever and take away all of his AUM”. Smells like woke communism is rampant on the Int’l Commie Protocol
the threshold for ownership transfers should require some sort of super majority voting… not some simple majority of people who have no clue and neurons who may be following
It’s a motion proposal, even if it passes nothing would happen:
A motion is a text that can be adopted or rejected. No code is executed when a motion is adopted. An adopted motion should guide the future strategy of the Internet Computer ecosystem.
As stated in above quote, motion proposals are meant for guiding the future strategy, they can’t transfer neurons and are the incorrect proposal type for this purpose.
5 Likes
i understand that. but it would look very bad. this already looks very bad. the entire point of this system is that these things get automated (supposedly) at some point.
so make up excuses if you want but this looks terrible. esp if it passes. and the foundation shows that the proposals are just bullshit anyway.
1 Like
Depending on the proposal type, things are automated.
I do understand your concerns with the NNS proposal process, just a few points for clarity:
- Anyone with ICP can create proposals, even non technical users can use tooling like https://proposals.network/
- Anyone with ICP is able to vote
- Anyone can vote however they want which means:
- Some users vote without reading in detail
- Some users always vote no
- Some users always vote yes
- Majority of the voting power is expected to be with users that:
- Read the proposals in detail
- Vote based on their well thought out opinion
- Mechanisms like “wait for quiet” have been implemented to make sure every user has had an opportunity to vote at crucial moments like a yes/no majority change.
Given those details, there will likely never be a vote with full agreement in favor or against a proposal. The basis of trust in the NNS proposal process is based on the majority of users being well informed and voting based on a well thought out opinion.
4 Likes
Scott:
You committed suicide I thought?
i’m well aware of the rules…
i still believe that for marketing and public perception and perhaps even legal purposes for anything that has to do with property rights and extra-judicial confiscation of property which in some jurisdiction may indeed be actual theft or conspiracy to commit theft from a legal perspective should have a much higher threshold not 50%.
i have no idea who this person is and even if they are a “scammer” we live in a society where we have civil and criminal courts to deal with issues like this, not vigilante justice which can become perverted by some random internet mob.
it’s just a very bad look for Dfinity and ICP, no one outside of Dfinity/ICP ecosystem like actual govt lawyers will care about your clarifications if stuff like this gets out of control.
if he is dead then all the more reason for this to look bad as the funds should go to the estate and the legal issues whatever they maybe should be dealt with by attorneys. not basically stolen and then mixed into the ICP ecosystem so that they end up tainting our clean ICP with proceeds from what basically looks like some criminal conspiracy.
you people need to learn what rule of law means
the law in the place u live in when you decide to be part of a conspiracy to commit theft and then participate in money laundering.
and if any NNS server is located in the USA obviously also US federal law 
good luck with this unlawful attempt to commit internet theft on some rugger.
maybe you know try to actually talk to law enforcement, and get a court order…
Imagine if Scott made the prop himself lmao
Someone should make another motion proposal to undo the motion proposal in question.