Do you have proof that these people want to harm the network? If not, then you just don’t want people with money to take advantage of the natural mechanics of the network, which was created just for those who want to be a part of it…
None of my arguments are predicated on malicious intent of those 3 individuals.
They need only vote in their own best interest which is likely in the future to align with their profit and retention or growth of power, rather than what’s healthy for the network.
@borovan is the one making those claims, im trying to find a middle ground.
Why do you mean? Don’t they have to have WTN which is essentially worth money?
sorry I don’t know which of my posts you are adressing. could you clarify?
David Fisher, Tom Serres, these names mean anything to you? Do they have skin in the game? Because the blockchain shows me that they have 6 million ICP sitting idle.
This is an assumption that is not based on facts. And in general, when it comes to profits… The more successful the network is, the more their profits. So they will be interested in ICP’s success. And I don’t think they see ICP as a competitor to their network. The projects have different status and different purpose.
@enom
This is completely fair.
I just don’t see what is the downside of mitigating the risk? I’m not saying to destroy the project, just reduce the influence it potentially has outside of the dao.
If the DAO can influence the NNS than the NNS ought to be able to influence the DAO. dont you think?
The point is the NNS can do so if it so wants to at any time. So yes it’s in the room with us right now.
I don’t know that they are governance attack. I cast my vote as part of the group independently and no one has ever told me how to vote. How can there be an attack when each voting member can vote however they want?
Given me away, how?
I think at this point the NNS has the right to fully delete WTN and then return ICP back to users. I am a bit extreme here, maybe just nerfing this whole madness will do it so we can sleep better.
2 Likes
im trying to find middle ground with these guys! I don’t think they are going to agree to that solution!
This is true.
Your stance is no liquid staking at all though so it’s not one is bad other is good and you’re consistent in your stance which I respect and appreciate.
I am vaguely familiar with them. I don’t know how much ICP they own and how much they have staked but holding WTN is having stake in the game because WTN is worth money or at least will be worth money if and when there a lot of nICP adoption.
How do you know they don’t have staked ICP?
Let’s delete ntn too. After all it was Adam who funded your project to take money from the nf.
This is an existential problem (for DAOs). DAO affects NNS and has never once shown itself to be a bad actor so far. But people demanding more NNS influence on DAO perceive DAO as a threat and want to limit and even destroy it. Is NNS influence on DAO legitimate in this situation? No. We are already in a conflict situation and the victim here is not NNS but DAO 
I’m not sure that is my stance. I would have to study more whitepapers and different models.
The one we are currently adressing I do believe is predatory in nature. That doesn’t mean I think the DAO are bad people or whatever, just the way I see things.
I’m so glad I did because they’re fantastic devs and worked out exactly why WaterNeuron is an insidious attack upon the NNS.
1 Like
I am assuming Synapse rulers also has a lot of voting power and no skin in the game. Somehow collected from bigger ICP contributors who can’t find the time to manage neurons. Someone should give em a call and let them know what’s up.
Where is said spreadsheet that shows how I vote? What conclusion can be drawn from how I vote and how I interact in the forum?
I agree it’s a super complicated problem.
I’m still racking my brain on an appropriate way to adress this issue that is fair to all parties.
But I would hope we can atleast agree that there IS A RISK HERE worth discussing how to properly mitigate.
I would hope we are past the point of arguing about who the good guys are, and agree that we should design systems to be trustless.
I don’t currently have a good solution. It’s a very difficult problem.
Now this risk is exaggerated. And this is also a problem. There is more personal animosity in this exaggeration (towards the project and the people who run it) than a real threat to the network. In general, I understood the positions of all the people here and drew my own conclusions It was nice talking, have a nice night
1 Like