Exploitation of the Neuron Fund

DFINITY setting standards & guidelines, and following them, does not make them bad people.

Realistically, a foundation following predetermined standards is what you’d want.

6 Months leaves a lot of time for continuous exploitation of the same acknowledged issues.

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.

The following quotes show that these are the foundations standards & vulnerabilities, that they’ve set in place & acknowledged;

Going to tag relevant parties so this isn’t neglected, again.

@bjoernek @Severin @dominicwilliams @diegop

Really want to do a Walter Peck meme again because you literally are him… but the last one got removed. Maybe later when I’ve had a few drinks.

haha the comment is back!!

1 Like

@Accumulating.icp the post has been recognised internally already but @bjoernek is on PTO this week. He’ll respond to you when he’s back


Thank you for the response & update on the situation.


And why would you do that? Marketcap is all about base tokens. Not the tokens you collect by selling them.

@Accumulating.icp Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have three three initial responses.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Your reasoning to temporarily ignore it, was the very “potential enhancement” that you referenced.

I’m curious what the intentions behind redefining this to a “feature” rather than a “flaw” after the fact are.

I appreciate that DFINITY is open to atleast some degree of feedback - so thank you for the commitment to internal review.

Crossposting this related post from @domwoe.


Thank you for objectively reviewing internally to come to this conclusion, and for sharing it with me.

It is greatly appreciated.