Great opinion as always.Let’s continue to point out defects until the foundation drinks the standards set by financial advisors.The foundation’s refusal to accept the position talk of its advisors is no doubt that the ICP is not decentralized.If the film rises and the forum freezes, they shout censored.
@Accumulating.icp Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have three three initial responses.
Firstly, regarding positioning this conversation: The linked forum thread offers potential enhancements for the Neuron’s Fund, like the Matched Funding scheme, which could mirror market signals more accurately. However, this does not mean that the current set-up has “design flaws”. It is merely a suggestion to enhance an existing & functional set-up.
If the NNS community leans towards adopting the Matched Funding approach, it would indeed be prudent to consider refining the voting standards in the interim until such changes are executed, as you have pointed out. I will consult with the Growth team (@Lomesh-dfn1) to understand DFINITY’s perspective.
It appears that your proposal stretches beyond just DFINITY’s voting approach. You seem to be suggesting a boundary condition for SNS tokenomics, which warrants discussion with all stakeholders in the NNS governance.
This is not a proposal, nor is it indicated as such.
This forum post has documented how DFINITY has acknowledged this issue, yet continuously allow it to be abused.
The objective of this forum post is to request yet another degree of clarity & guidelines from DFINITY, as the previous “set” have been repeatedly abused with the blessing of DFINITY.
While you are back-tracking on this now, we’ve already come to agree that this is a design flaw, as shown below.