Please note this post was submitted about 8 hours ago, but it is another example of a post that was held up for moderators approval. While I don’t mind needing a moderator to approve my post, it would be nice to know what triggered the need for moderator review. Moderator approval is a new feature and I can’t tell yet why and how it was implemented. My goal is to stay aligned with forum rules so a moderator isn’t needed.
I’m not sure why you felt the need to insert some personal attacks in this response, but you make some great points. It is a deviation from the original intent of this forum topic, but it’s worth further discussion.
You have done a really good job of raising your concerns. Unfortunately, your tactics are often presented in an ad hominem and accusatory tone. I believe that is why you have felt like you are being ignored. Just look at the thread that you linked above. SYBILing nodes! scream Exploiting IC Network… Community Attention Required! is a thread that starts off by accusing node providers of nefarious intent in the title itself. The evidence that you provide of this nefarious intent is extremely weak…node providers with the number 23 in their forum username or accusing husband/wife and/or business partners of colluding because they chose to use different business entities in different locations. The tone is not one in which any sane person would be interested in engaging.
I would argue that when you started that thread it was already recognized that improvements needed to be made to the node provider selection and onboarding policies. The need for these improvements were realized because community members such as yourself, CodeGov, and Aviate Labs started getting paid through the Grants for Voting Neurons program to start looking at proposals in the Subnet Management, Participant Management, and Node Admin through the lens of a reviewer. It became clear that work processes for how to create the proposals and what to look for in the reviews needed to be improved. Yet, there are existing rules in place that have been deemed sufficient for years. It takes time to evolve and improve these work processes and as more people start paying attention these policies will get better. I’ve stated on more than one occasion that Adam has made a positive contribution in the node provider space by accelerating the need for defining and implementing these improvements. I am very appreciative of the influence he has been able to assert in this area, but I still wish he would do it in a more professional and civilized manner.
I agree that you have provided some of the best reviews of SNS launches. It’s not enough. We need more people doing it, but it is real work and, unfortunately, there is no incentive for people to do anything more than a simple yes or no vote. It’s a great example of getting what we pay for. It’s also a proposal topic where it would make sense for the whales of the ecosystem to actually provide funding to people and/or organizations to perform more due diligence on SNS projects.
Ideally, reviewers would be aware of every new SNS project and start their investigations the moment they are announced. It would include thorough review of white papers, forum posts, SNS organization, yaml file, canister code review, etc. The reviews would be written before the proposal hits the NNS so they can be posted within 12 hours. The same reviewers would perform this work for every SNS project. Hence, specific reviewers could build a reputation for their work and gain a following. Investors could decide who they want to trust in their evaluations.
This level of commitment is far more advanced than anyone has ever demonstrated so far, but I believe it is critically needed. This service needs to be provided by many reviewers. It will never happen if the NNS doesn’t fund this type of work.
Noted. I’ll do my best to take your advice.