Okay.
It would be nice to see WTN Founders justification or this, since he submitted the 84 Nodes proposal that got rejected
I would like to see this happen. Apparently the Water neuron grant recipients do not want this to happen. Hopefully this discussion doesn’t get derailed again..
Maybe Adam can explain to everyone why he is here fighting for governance and transparency but is actively voting to cause harm to the network.
Or even better as he is fighting for more scrutiny on sns projects he voted in wtn to approve a sns project that most likely should be rejected until development is further along.
I think that Waterneuron founders not being present in this thread is a major red flag and very telling
Yes
Read this.
Yes read this
Yes
Governance Centralization Risk from Liquid Staking Design
Do you not understand that nodes are a part of ICP “Governance”
1 Like
You must be missing the part that specified “liquid staking design”
That removes the broad umbrella of governance such as nodes.
1 Like
this is just your opinion, not a fact. Sure lets remove or change and connect and create terminologies and meanings whenever we want.. anyways WTN founders are busy returning those 84 nodes they got from David Fischer ?
Posting this here to help cut through the off topic conversation.
As far as governance goes for liquid staking members should take their role in voting seriously as they have the power to contribute to a major vote.
It is good we have tools to trace user voting so people can track and follow neurons they feel are here to protect the network and take governance seriously within the dao.
I recommend every liquid staking protocol to have a way to display voting records to ensure transparency in the governance portion of the dao.
1 Like
1 Like
Leo and Enzo 42 nodes each.
Leo and Enzo own 40% each of Sisyphus AG and Fisher 20%. The goal, I believe, is to extend David’s control over nodes in exchange for a cut of Coinbase liquid staking rewards (David is a Coinbase investor)
3 Likes
Thank you for helping to connect the dots @borovan.
Just so im clear the claim you’re making is:
-
There is a certain vc who is also a node provider.
-
That vc is also a member of synapse who likely has undue influence over other members.
-
That vc is a major investor in an sns project which recently attempted to acquire 84 nodes.
-
This investors strategy appears to be to target ventures which allow them to exert more voting power than they would receive by staking tokens themselves.
-
This vc is financially connected to a major exchange (coinbase)
-
If tomorrow or next week everyone on coinbase had access to liquid staking, this person and his associates, would gain significant influence over the network and significant inflationary pressure would be added to the network (overnight).
Did I get everything right or are there more pieces missing?
1 Like
They wouldn’t gain massive influence over the network because the canister-controlled Neurons vote is capped to 10% (and we’ve got our own liquid staking solution coming, plus other ways to eat up as much of that 10% as possible.) The price of WTN would go up a lot however, and they’d probably find a few more ways to cause damage with this outsized VP.
I’m not sure he’s invested in that many projects outside of WTN.
The rest is mostly right, yeah. The strategy to get voting power is all Wenzel.
2 Likes