But what if it could? What if it could take the entire ecosystem and move it to a new group of owners legally?
Why do they need to destroy it? Why can’t they just make decisions that increasingly benefit themselves at the detriment to other participants of the network? The same way the protocol does already inherently.
I agree, but right now there is no counterweight.
A hardcoded vp cap isn’t solving the problem fully. You also need to make sure people with no skin in the game don’t get to vote with retail user assets or anyones assets.
2 Likes
Everyone who buys wtn has skin in the game.
1 Like
They have given their voting power to David, Wenzel, Tom, Leo and Enzo for a start.
3 Likes
You can spend money and get more skin in the game.
The exact same thing you say is morally good for the free markets.
This is true, right now. In the future that skin in the game will be miniscule compared to the retail trader assets they are leveraging.
This project by design creates externalities that are not comparable to any other project on the IC. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
atleast @enom is making intellectually honest arguments, and I appreciate that.
Sounds like you missed your chance to buy more during the first and second sale.
The probability of this happening is almost zero. But let’s assume that new people take over the network and establish their leadership. Adam, I love the Motoko Ghosts collection. I’ve been collecting my nfts for almost 4 years. But then the collection was given to Motoko DAO (Accu), after which you came and took possession of the DAO. As a result, the collection is now under your control. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? ICP has a lot of problems that come from the management. The ecosystem has been degraded all the time of its existence. If someone new comes, we will at least have hope that we will get out of this hole. But no one will come, because the foundation has the deciding vote. Because with the growth of the ecosystem, each DAO will be counterbalanced by other projects/DAOs. And because no exchange alone will be able to get the right number of votes. And collusion is unlikely, because it is unprofitable for those who want to manage everything on their own.
2 Likes
1)
Disregarding their intentions can we atleast agree that this point @borovan makes is true, 3 accounts control more than 51% of the dao so this is by definition true.
Can we also agree that:
2)
3)
I would also like to add a 3rd problematic point where I believe we can agree and that is:
It is possible that the DAOs votes may not always be aligned with nICP holders best interests.
RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
When managing risk we must consider both how likely something is to happen AND the ammount of damage that could be done.
Do I think it is likely that the 3 accounts who control the DAO are malicious. No, I would say that is unlikely.
However, they need not be destructive, all they need to do is vote in a way that benefits themselves at the expense of others. and the damage that could be done could be catastrophic.
2 Likes
The sale tokenomics have a Pacman design. Everyone except WTN insiders has to put ICP in ~5 times more than the insiders in all four sales to manage to get to 50%. The heavy disadvantage makes it almost impossible. Anything less results in your ICP eaten and used by them.
1 Like
I know I’m trying to find a middle ground here and make arguments that are not predicated on that premise.
It’s fun going back and forth with @enom because he argues honestly.
1 Like
You have to give it to them though, it’s a really good plan!
Coinbase - we kill a competitor and there’s no blood on our hands
ICP Shorters - $$$ know exactly when it bottoms $$$
WTN Holders - $$$
Wenzel and Co - governance over the IC
DOLR AI - we’ve got ready made canisters to onboard new users
What a shitshow!
1 Like
I hope for all of our sakes, that these things are just individuals finding ways to benefit from the situation, and not a coordinated plan. Because if it is cooordinated we might be in trouble.
1 Like
Casual WTN holders aren’t gonna profit from ICP rewards with prices falling like a brick, it’s just a bait.
Yeah, I guess I think in ICP terms not dollars
-
Maybe it is. I only saw Adam’s words.
-
You cannot know how much the skin will cost and who has contributed how much of their money to the DAO. I am more than confident that the user rewards will not be limited to just one thing. It is in the interests of the DAO to attract new people, which means that it will try to reward everyone significantly.
-
There are dissenters in any vote. Everyone has their own opinion. The majority decides. If a person does not like the direction in which the DAO is moving, he has the right to leave. It seems to me that you are creating a problem out of the blue and exaggerating the negative consequences. You are now trying to think for people, even though they themselves are able to assess the risks and prospects. There are no only winning decisions. Someone always gets less, because the resource is not unlimited. The people who control the DAO take care of the DAO, and therefore of the people inside it. Most people risk insignificant amounts, which can be compensated and increased by the economics and mechanics of the DAO. All in all, I can tell you one thing. You’re trying to create guarantees where they can’t be. No one guarantees the success of the project and investments. Every time people participate in the DAO, they consciously take risks, realizing what the consequences may be.
2 Likes
You make many good points here I want to clarify something. Because I can see how my previous arguments may have led you to think what you said.
I am not concerned about the other DAO participants. Or the nICP holders, they can leave whenever they want.
My concern is that those 3 individuals will hold potentially 10% of the VP in the nns. and it won’t even be their skin.
2 Likes
Yeah mic drop.
All nICP voting power / WTN neurons are controlled by three people. What are the chances they’re going to vote the same way?
Frankly i don’t see what the problem given the NNS can limit VP of WaterNeuron once it passess a certain threshold. Say 10-15%? This way they would never get enough VP for a 51% attack. DFINITY has more than that. Why shouldn’t another organization be able to?