I’ve read this forum post several times now. Can you highlight the part that you think supports DFINITY’s argument for voting to reject? Considering these principles were posted on May 10 I’m curious why they’ve been interpreted differently for this proposal and not the Treasury “temp check” proposal that DFINITY voted to adopt.
4 Likes
That’s subjective, I know tons of investors and developers who’ve never mentioned that. Why are you making this into an objective “problem” when it’s just an opinion.
I think it’s way too early for the NNS to be any more than a random collection of people each with differing opinions. Decentralisation takes time and I for one don’t want to have to adhere to a list of guidelines specified by a small group of individuals and a conversation I haven’t been part of.
13 Likes
How do you attract bigger companies to move to the IC if there are no guarantees of protocol stability? This lack of long-term stability seems inherent to the protocol, every aspect of it could be subject to change. This seems to fit in with the ethos of Web3 but not for any big corporate entity. How can ICP become a new basis layer of the Internet if it has certain seemingly unavoidable/unfixable issues that come with it?
Unless this total flexibility of the protocol is a feature, which it certainly is to a big extent. But I’ve always wondered if a corporation could have its own ICP enclave which would not be subject to the NNS.
8 Likes
Nonono
This isnt what Dfinity is saying
This is what the OTHER SIDE is saying
People have been going nuts experimenting with Tokenomics… and the whole reason for this “Ethos” is to stop these cowboy moves with potential drastic consequences
4 Likes
This.
Dont understand how we are AWS competitors when we cant even offer basic service guarantees.
4 Likes
I know tons of investors and developers who’ve never mentioned anything about ANY proposals - Doesnt mean these are not problems
Don’t understand how fundamental changes to how ICP operates is NOT a risk to builders who create with a given “Framework” in mind
Really isnt up to debate whether tokenomics changes cause impact to builders - It causes impact to builders.
3 Likes
This! I work in a global company that sells cloud services to enterprises…they would never migrate to the IC without some guarantees. It’s not even a use case of the IC at this point.
4 Likes
Has no one in Dfinity worked for any corp that have ever onboarded tech and the process they go through?
Maybe a professional tech consultant is needed here?
2 Likes
@LightningLad91 @mechaquan @AndraGeorgescu
I can understand the comparison which you are drawing to the temperature check proposal. Indeed the decision on the temperature check proposal was not clear-cut and we had a discussion on whether this proposal would meet the criteria of our DFINITY voting guideline (as for example explained here by @diegop in an earlier post).
I guess the reality is that applying principles in practise always gives room for interpretation, and one could come up with arguments for and against a proposal, even when using the same principles.
And probably in hindsight, given the a big amount of controversy, which the voting by DFINITY on the temperature check proposal steered, it would have been better to vote no (while being open for further discussion at the same time).
9 Likes
Thanks for this… I think the biggest issue here is around transparency and consistency.
This is what will make people want to invest money and time into the IC.
3 Likes
I fully agree that principles/criteria/goals are a useful tool. For example, some time ago @lara & me compiled a list of voting goals which we found useful to assess proposed voting enhancements.
However, I have a different view on how & where these principles should be applied. When it comes to expressing how members of the NNS will most likely vote, it looks very natural for me to define & communicate principles on the level of known neurons and not for the NNS as a whole. This way we can create a competition of ideas, and neurons can follow those known neurons which reflect best their preferences.
4 Likes
@aiv The proposal is interfering heavily with the way things work right now. I would be surprised if it passed right away. You are free to change it and convince everyone it’s the right thing to do, then propose it again as many times as you want.
From the proposal:
The way things work right now - Everyone votes with their tokens and if voters believe a proposal is for the better, they vote yes. Even if that ‘yes’ is to delete a canister, which in theory should decrease the ICP token value. Voters are well aware that messing with tokenomics and censorship reduces the value of their tokens and it should be done only in dire circumstances, where deleting something will be the lesser evil. This is a lot better than big tech, which has you agree to a ToS giving them the freedom to silently remove anything they want without legal repercussions.
From AWS Terms of Service
Notice “if we reasonably believe” basically means “do whatever we want”, because they can always provide a reason to believe anything.
The mutability aspect is not very different from Ethereum, where you have mining pools and nodes vote on software upgrades, which can do anything. Being technically and logistically harder doesn’t mean it’s more immutable or more censorship resistant. Ethereum can decide to make things easier and faster, which will result in the same governance system as NNS.
The proposed “NNS Principles” sound very much like ICP Terms of Service and when Dfinity votes for these principles/terms, it will be pretty much digitally signing them and probably getting legally obligated.
So how will this play out? If there are dire circumstances and something has to be done, not only the ICP price will fall, but also NNS and voting neurons will be breaking their principles/terms causing it to fall even more, and additionally everyone voting may get exposed to legal actions against them.
You highlighted it’s a problem that ‘no one can speak on behalf of all NNS neurons’
I really don’t think it’s a good idea for someone to be speaking on behalf of a DAO. It should work just like it does, everyone speaks for themselves and the code speaks for itself too. I wouldn’t want someone to be marketing the ‘principles’ to attract new devs and investors.
These principles at best will be a perfect translation of the ever-changing code, which will be near impossible to do. At worse, they will be disconnected from the code Terms of Service. As a developer, I can’t see the benefit of increasing trust based on loose text principles, which are doomed to be broken and create a bigger mess as soon as someone tries to make Silk Road on the IC.
11 Likes
I think you say all what need to be said about voting and this NNS principles proposal.
Having competing principles and interests is the nature of decentralization. As a result, these principles should be well defined within each known neuron, not NNS as a whole.
I don’t want and will never accept a set of NNS principles that go against my own principles and interests.
6 Likes
Fair point a better reason to vote NO than Dfinity has provided
1 Like
Logically impossible: If that was the case, the “OTHER SIDE” would have voted NO
1 Like
@Arthur I do not have any insights/knowledge on legal interactions which you mentioned (and I would find it very hard to judge it without having a full picture of the according history). And in case that this involve real legal arguments, I assume that we could not comment on it in the forum anyway.
In any case, this is definitely outside of my area of expertise.
This whole problem is because they don’t
Its becoming more commonplace to mess with tokenomics and this is really what needs to stop
To enforce this in code, more discussions will be coming up
If this is true I’m probably never making another proposal again.
1 Like
S-sir you can’t mean that we shouldn’t endlessly tweak tokenomics for my benefit in particular?
1 Like
Are we saying going forward Dfinity will Vote NO on all such Temp Check proposals?
As you can see, the Double standards is strikingly clear and feels extremely biased right now
It feels like as soon as the wider community gets involved, Dfinity changes its stance to best suit their agenda (Regardless of if its true or not)
Is there any clarity on Dfinitys Principals on how they vote?
2 Likes