Making a mistake does not infer incompetence. Taggr went into unchartered territories, alone…
Any dev team doing this will inevitably encounter issues.
We should be thanking them for their bravery and for providing this valuable lesson to the rest of the ecosystem, not criticizing them.
I hope we can set the precedent of helping others recover their apps and accounts in the future because of this.
DSCVR Internet Identity is split between many domains and I’m happy to see that we will provide the same continued level of support for those impacted as well as a way to provide social recovery for lost accounts in the future.
This is a good and valid point but has two sides that argue against or for setting a precedent since after all it is Immutable blockchain that is the underlaying thing that we are talking about.
Just a user here, but IDK how I feel about the idea of establishing this as a norm. Helping TAGGR makes sense to me because they are experimenting with DAOs in a way that no one but DF has really done so far. I expect mistakes to be made and for the NNS to help fix those mistakes.
For me, setting this expectation that the NNS will come to the rescue for individual accounts seems like a slippery slope and I don’t know how we’d manage that as the network ecosystem grows.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Also just a simple user and huge fan of IC as far as technology goes but at the end of the day it all comes down to simple choice either do this and then do this for average Joe that staked for 8 years and lost his phone and has no seed or draw a line and law is law the same for anyone regardless.
There’s a big difference here in my opinion. There are many people here to vouch for which canister ID was owned by Taggr, but only one person can vouch for their own Internet Identity principal.
I could be wrong but I don’t believe those are our only two options. However, if I were to assume that you’re right, I would choose to change my vote and reject.
Thankfully, I don’t believe that’s the case.
DSCVR has done it’s fair share of pioneering and has been careful enough to make good decision on the expectations of the technology. Still with everything we have done there has been issues with lost accounts over internet Identity with thousands of ICP worth of NFTs lost.
What about ways to help them socially recover their accounts? Why aren’t they important also?
Not gonna argue that BUT and I can’t stress this enough : My opinion only ! Developers and specially teams should have more accountability than simple users. “the controller-id is set to null” … then again I support any decision made by the Foundation and majority even though I do not agree
Well, if DSCVR has a need due to their own pioneering I would hope you’d bring forward a solution in a proposal just like TAGGR has. What I don’t want to see is the NNS turn into a help desk for recurring problems. I would expect most DAOs and Social Apps like your own to learn from your pioneering so the NNS doesn’t have to solve these problems for them.
But you can literally count them…
Yes I hope that won’t be the case
We have brought many problems and many solutions to the foundation. I guess we were not aware that the NNS was capable of being a help desk.
Updated to say “many” instead of “countless”… Not that it changes anything.
I’m not surprised you think that 
. I care deeply about the users who have lost accounts on DSCVR and if there is a path to help them recover their lost accounts it would be great to see that.
Well, this sucks doesn’t it… Taggr is one of the ICs most unique products. They’ve been killing it out there.
I do not want to argue for inaction here. But, this effectively is our “The DAO” event and is going to have massive implications if we casually commit to this. The NNS cannot be allowed full authority to arbitrarily modify canisters. If we allow and continue to allow that then we’ll always just be building in someone else’s playground - the exact thing I came to the IC to fight against.
@dominicwilliams, this is a practical solution and works great at our current stage of N<100 major projects. But, what happens when we hit critical mass start really start growing? If the goal is planet scale, open internet services, will an event like this even register on the NNS’s radar; what is the plan here long term?
The point is that many people can vouch for Taggr’s canister ID, but only one person can vouch for their lost Internet Identity. How can you trust that person is not lying about which identity that they’re trying to claim is lost?
I have questioned the validity of determining Taggr’s canister through social validation in my previous comments and I’m not comfortable with the idea, but it’s not the same as this case with lost Internet Identity anchors. Going ahead with the former does not mean the latter should be gone ahead with too.
I’m inclined to vote yes but only as long as this episode acts as a wake up call and leads to prioritize work so stuff like this doesn’t happen again in the future.
So far I’m not entirely sure that is the case considering the thread literally started with Dom saying:
Going forwards, the consensus is that open internet services using this architecture assign the NNS DAO to the controller id, so that it can more easily act as a decentralized administrator of last resort if something likes this occurs.
I wonder whose consensus he is speaking about since the dicussions had barely started on Twitter when he wrote that.
Even if we set aside the question of where this approach stands in relation to the crypto ethos, it doesn’t seem to be scalable at all as @LightningLad91 pointed out, do we really expect stakers in the future to do due diligence everytime a dApp has issues? Wouldn’t it instead be better to create an infrastructure that allows service owners to take care of it on their own?
Fwiw Rick I do appreciate you bringing up the establishment of a precedent. I’ve started taking about this with others and am doing my own thinking on this. As much as I love TAGGR and what they’ve done I’ll need to consider the real implications of this decision.
Maybe DSCVR needs to spend more on teaching/training/guiding new users of the platform instead of promoting a new : “decentralized free and open speech platform " without any reference to the number 1 rule being " 1. You will not create content or participate in a manner that violates United States Law.”