Everything always has external factors. Everything is always contained in something and interacts with something. At the same time, everything can always be self-sufficient and act in their own interests. The DAO is part of the ecosystem and it makes no sense for it to destroy its soil, its foundation. But it has the right to think about itself and those who belong to it…through its own management mechanisms. The fact that you are afraid of DAO is not a problem of DAO. and the specifics of your condition. In such a situation, having no facts of a real threat and trying to play a non-hypothetical advance, it is more reasonable to create a counterweight rather than trying to destroy someone’s brainchild consisting of the interests / desires of many people.
Why do you ignore the vp cap for canister controlled neurons?
There is no vp cap. It’s a motion proposal pointing a vp canister cap will be developed in the future.
Why not make a proposal with the code to ensure the vp cap is set?
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.
Everyone who buys wtn has skin in the game.
They have given their voting power to David, Wenzel, Tom, Leo and Enzo for a start.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!