Thank you @lara, this was very well put
The amount of censorship in this thread is concerning.
Are we really so thin skinned that we can’t face legitimate criticism?
3 Likes
Well yeah its a tool they use, but also they censor people from the team too to try and pretend everybody is treated equally.
The censorhip on this forum is out of control.
6 Likes
Maybe we need a new forum without all this censorship, somewhere people can actually speak their minds without getting shut down.
4 Likes
No because then the saboteurs would have direct, unfettered access to the people building the protocol and we’d be just posting discord memes.
1 Like
Personally I still think that one of the problems is the framing of the SNS is wrong. It is advertised as a ‘decentralization sale’ and ‘decentralized DAOs’, which is technically correct (depending on your definition) but is not practically true. The SNS is a high risk investment vehicle for early stage projects. That isn’t a good or a bad thing, but i think that fact is being distorted by this ‘decentralization sale’ framing, decentralized hype and people wanting to support projects in the ecosystem. These arent community driven/run projects, they are teams that are looking for initial investment so they can build out their projects.
So as far as the ‘early startup investment DAO’ goes the SNS seems to techincally work, but as we have all seen there is an issue on transparency and/or putting out anything for people to see. Doesn’t necessarily mean that the teams arent doing anything but unlike in normal investment scenarios there isn’t oversight to these projects. Oversight is a job and no one is going to do that unless they are paid (or extremely motivated) and are experienced doing so.
I would love to see DAOs where its not just some speculative investment but joint partnerships or communal governance of something where it make sense. Personally i see financial ‘rewards’ for voting/participation not the healthiest way to have a long sustaining communities/projects since it usually just ends up being a investment someone sits on and delegates their vote to the core contributor. I think in a lot of cases the ‘reward’ should be the outcome/getting to have a say in how the project is governed, or something that is not just a speculative investment where you put no value into something except for money expecting a return.
Especially in an ecosystem that is so untested and immature, its hard to see these large stakes being put up where people expect there to be some oversight, trust or low(er) risk.
It may seems ‘counter’ to growing the ecosystem quickly but I really do see an issue is framing this as a place to have decentralized service governance via ‘decentralization sales’ with ‘decentralized DAOs’ called SNSs, when there is so much of a human component to it vs just being decentralized on a code level.
When confidence start collapsing like this because SNS was framed as this place where its safe to invest and be a part of a decentralized community, we have a problem. Either these high risk projects are not great at communication or execution if they are in a bad state. Someone coming over and buying up all the stake in a high risk project seems ok to me if things don’t seem like they are going right. But a person coming and buying it all up when its a idealized ‘decentralized’ project that is endorsed by Dfinity, is not good for anyone.
Framing matters IMO
9 Likes
If DFINITY is planning to step in and help support healthy DAO governance, maybe this NFIDW situation is a good place to start.
Right now, it seems like one individual’s personal opinion—without any clear reasoning—is blocking all proposals and effectively paralyzing the DAO. That’s not how decentralized systems are supposed to work. The DAO model should be about improvement and collaboration, not gatekeeping based on vague accusations.
ICP is still a small ecosystem, and we don’t have that many high-quality wallets. NFID has already laid the groundwork for a solid product, and with proper support and direction, it could really help grow the ecosystem. It shouldn’t be allowed to die just because of unresolved personal issues or silence on specific concerns.
DFINITY stepping in to help coordinate, communicate, or even just encourage some forward motion here would go a long way toward showing commitment to fair DAO processes and ecosystem growth.
@Leadership @dostro @borovan
2 Likes
I’m sure they will be making a difference soon.
1 Like
I prefer calling them governance particilants rather than investors. I still remember when any coin labeled an investment made it considered a security, and IC website was edited to remove any connotation of investment.
4 Likes
The model is flawed. Incentives are geared more towards governance than towards collaborations and adding value to the community.
At early stage, dev teams should have a majority stake and provide a roadmap with milestones, where future funding depends on!
No neuron should be locked more than 1 year.
Fund raising should take place in stages as per each milestone delivery, moving from LoFi to HiFi models!
1 Like
As I suggested, why not adopt the iCVC VC funding system for all SNS’s going forward?
1 Like