I’m extending an invitation to all WTN members who share a vision of a truly decentralized and community-driven DAO to join forces and collaborate on initiatives and proposals that promote decentralization, community participation, and the long-term health of the ecosystem.
It’s essential that the DAO serves the broader WTN community, prioritizing the well-being of the entire ecosystem over the interests of a select group of stakeholders. Unfortunately, the current state of the DAO is at odds with this vision. Despite its claims of promoting decentralization, the DAO is actually concentrating voting power, which has a detrimental impact on new ecosystem investors and participants.
By diluting the ICP of these newcomers, the DAO is misleading them into believing they are contributing to a more sustainable and equitable ecosystem, when in reality, they are being disenfranchised and unable to earn meaningful rewards. This is a far cry from the decentralized and community-driven ideals that the DAO claims to represent.
I believe it’s time for us to come together and work towards creating a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable ecosystem that truly serves the needs of the broader WTN community. If you’re passionate about decentralization and community-driven decision making, let’s join forces and create a better future for the WTN ecosystem.
The linear reward models disproportionately empower large holders, causing whale centralization and reduced participation from smaller stakeholders. Non-linear or square-root reward models reduce whale dominance but are vulnerable to Sybil attacks without strong identity or Sybil resistance mechanisms. The Internet Computer currently lacks fully integrated cryptographic identity layers, complicating Sybil-proof reward distribution.
Proposed WTN VP Scaling
Square Root Reward Function:
Rewards scale with the square root of stake. This sublinear scaling limits whale advantage while preserving incentives for meaningful participation, with generally higher yields due to longer lock.
Minimum Lock-in Period (2 Years):
Neurons must be locked for at least two years to qualify. This increases economic and time costs, acting as a pseudo-Sybil resistance. It discourages short-term manipulation and stake splitting.
Minimum Stake Threshold:
A minimum stake ensures participants have significant commitment, raising the cost of Sybil identity creation.
Hard Cap on Neurons per Entity
Set a maximum number of neurons that a single entity can control and have actively participate in governance and rewards.
Separate Reward Pools for Shorter Lock-ins:
Neurons with shorter lock durations access a separate, lower-yield reward pool with linear scaling. This supports onboarding and gradual commitment. Targets neurons locked for less than the minimum period, using linear reward scaling but with lower overall yield rates.
This is not true and had been discussed ad nauseam here on the forum. People are tired of rehashing the same arguments over and over. If you don’t like WaterNeuron, then don’t use it and throw your support behind a competing project. Competition is good. WaterNeuron is all about advancing decentralization while simultaneously creating an opportunity for liquid staking, which it has done well.
I’m so tired of seeing every post I make get hidden by default. This AI moderation feature is severely broken. This is another reason why people have stopped engaging in these conversations.
This is an absolute lie. WaterNeuron was meticulously planned to benefit a small group of holders at the expensive of everybody else. Every single last thing down to the voting percentages, secondary sales, treasury, everything was done to provide complete certainty that the SNS would always be 100% controlled by a small group.
Yes we will make a fairer product, what we don’t have is the links with Coinbase and the ability to onboard tens of millions of ICP short-term.
WaterNeuron isn’t going to work, it will be replaced by something that’s actually advancing decentralisation. So please stop stamping your feet and saying “it’s already been discussed and it’s completely fine.” It’s not, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a trojan horse that’s going to enrich you and the founders.
This is your opinion @borovan. I encourage you to create the competing product. I’m looking forward to learning more about it. I hope that it too benefits the IC in similar ways to how WaterNeuron benefits the IC. It would be nice if you stop trying to smear good projects in the process. The IC is a small ecosystem and having you stimulate so much negativity against so many good people and good projects isn’t a good look for you or for the ecosystem.
Just compete, lol… Make neuron Dao that rejects every single proposal with some bitcoin-esque tokenomics, adding ying and yang to chain immutability vs mutability raising the floor and standards to pass proposals opposed to onsey twosies code push for some easy yields.
LOL, you make same staking product, but yours 1 person has full control like all DAO-s you control.
Projects need to have centralised control, controlled by handful of people. If its not set like that, than comes whale who buys all up and destroys product.
The idea to offer staking product to exchanges is very good idea. But why Borovan is thinking that exchanges dont do it already, no need to have liquid staking for that.
You enable liquid staking at the cost of decentralization’ - a slogan that unfortunately rings true. It’s disappointing to see that decentralization is being sacrificed for the sake of convenience. The justification that ‘we must ensure our own interests are protected before others can gain a larger share’ is a stark admission that VP concentration is being prioritized over the well-being of the ecosystem. It’s a short-sighted approach that undermines the very principles of decentralization.
Their self-serving cabal agenda, which led to numerous design flaws, now demands a team of analysts and auditors just to ensure they make decent decisions - it’s not worth trying to fix anymore.
You can think of it as full blown dictatorship if it will put your mind at ease. We can also make the upgrade system require 90% of the vp to change something.
no, I participated 2’nd sns and open market as well.
i think we all made money with this that’s not the point at all.
yes and thanks i think your statement might even underscore the importance of this thread. i see one of the wallets you named in top 10 WTN DAO as well.
Yes Adam is in the top ten. I think he is number 6.
The point being the nns is mostly controlled by 3 wallets and people are here acting as if wtn is a security threat to icp and the nns.
Wtn can not be a threat to icp due to the restrictions on canister controlled neurons. As for concentration of vp the sns rewards the investors with more capital in the dao. This is standard across all projects.
more even distribution of the liquid staking generated reward part would not be bad for any of us. this might even boost value as DAO is perceived as aligned with its vision again and allows smaller and mid sized investors to earn NNS-competitive rewards with lower minimal capital requirements in the end attracting more capital than if only whales would have bought. All while strengthening overall ecosystem health and resilience and WTN fairness as well as mitigating any potential threats.
Improved reputation:
A good reputation can attract more stakeholders and increase trust.
Increased value:
This is a potential outcome, as a more even distribution of rewards could lead to increased confidence and investment in the DAO by targeting a broader investor base.
Increased decentralization:
This is a key benefit, as it could lead to a more fair and representative ecosystem, where more stakeholders have a greater say. A more even distribution of rewards could help to mitigate potential threats to the ecosystem, such as the risk of a small group of large investors dominating the market.
Increased community engagement:
This is a potential outcome, as more stakeholders would have a greater incentive to participate in the ecosystem, leading to increased community engagement and activity - potentially along multiple SNS projects (into which these ICP rewards might flow subsequently).
neuron Dao that rejects every single proposal with some bitcoin-esque tokenomics, adding ying and yang to chain immutability vs mutability raising the floor and standards to pass proposals opposed to onsey twosies code push for some easy yields. 
