Grants for voting neurons

The teaser trailer for Season 2 has just dropped!

Where is your due diligence Alex? Borovan is taking cheap shots using a Twitter post where CodeGov is promoting Season 2 to help spread the word and attract more people to the program. Why are you are willing to jump on his bandwagon to falsely allege that it is due diligence for a NNS proposal review? People expect this nonsense from Borovan, but they expect more from you Alex. You can do better.

Please don’t take this to heart Wenzel. We all want what’s best for the IC as whole.

I’m not jumping on anyone’s bandwagon. I’ve made my concerns known about LLM usage in the context of governance and governance-related promotion for a long time. LLMs are great at making people seem more knowledgeable than they are, and extending their reach beyond what is healthy (maximum but superficial effect, with minimal effort).

Due diligence is precisely about not taking things on face value. I exercise this as much as I can.

2 Likes

You also have a history of making false accusations including trying to associate LLM usage with CodeGov in a negative context. Honesty is also about calling out misrepresentations when you have direct knowledge that false statements are made. You have struggled to do this any time Borovan is involved over the last several months, especially in the context of CodeGov, Synapse, WaterNeuron, and some of the node provider conspiracies. If you want people to take you seriously as a candidate for Season 2 of the grant program, you should consider taking a more objective and diplomatic approach to your application of due diligence.

Hey @cryptoschindler @Leadership @samuelburri why do we still have to fight against these autohide forum moderation features when trying to engage in discussion on the forum about this grant program? Hasn’t the oversensitive autohide feature gone on long enough?

Even this message below was automatically hidden yesterday. What could possibly be wrong with that message?

I would really appreciate having @leadership post a message on the forum that details how the forum automation works with specific information about what triggers the autohide. I would very much like to avoid getting my posts hidden when it doesn’t seem like there should be any reason to hide them.

1 Like

Btw, can we get all reviewers to submit their reviews through a dedicated app? It’ll make crawling and using the intel much easier.

3 Likes

Your perspective is yours, and it makes sense that you’re responding in the way that you are. I can understand that you’re frustrated. You’ve spent a great deal of time and effort establishing and blustering entities that revolve around you (in terms of who holds the key, overtly in some cases, and covertly in others). Your stance is that this is justified, my stance is that it is not.

I have never made a false accusation. Everything I have said is backed up by references, and is also informed by my time spend in CodeGov, Synapse and the WaterNeuron community. You’re mistaking my constant demonstration of security sensitive bias as bias that is unjustified. Borovan is another community member with a hightened sense of distrust and high standards. The worst thing I’ve seen him do is acting as a chaos monkey that has helped strengthen and realign IC priorities. He has been genuine, and my stance is that you are not (this sentence is just my opinion).

2 Likes

That is an interesting idea. Wading through the forums isn’t the easiest way to keep track for sure.

Ideally if reviews could be appended to the proposals themselves, that would make things way easier for all involved (and for anyone wishing to vote) as they can clearly see all the results of the reviews.

I am not sure what would be required to do that though.

For example here

https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/137335

If there was a section where there was a link to the reviews from the people who receive grants for that purpose, that would be awesome.

5 Likes

The proposals where it is hard to follow reviews on the forum are Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. On those topics, there are supposed to be monster single threads where all reviews are submitted, but they end up getting scattered around. IC-OS Version Election is the topic that is the easiest to follow because DFINITY is intentional about posting on the forum before the proposals are submitted specifically so they can link it in each proposal. Then they update the forum post with the proposal ID, which means you can do an easy search for every IC-OS VE proposal ID and find the details of the proposal followed by every review. That is how it was originally supposed to work for Season 1, but the idea of DFINITY creating a parent post for every proposal where all reviewers reply was quickly abandoned in favor of the idea of posting reviews in the massive threads. Personally, I prefer to see a separate forum post for every proposal as DFINITY originally intended.

I would be careful with that thread. It shows that a reason you left wtn was because you didn’t get paid for a bounty. Could raise suspicion about a bias for payment vs conviction in a product.

2 Likes

Yes, UIs could display reviews. A bot could post them in the forum as well, so reviewers don’t have to do it twice.
A simple canister will work
Map< (Gov_canister_id,Proposal_id,Reviewer), (Review) >
Someone can build the app with Caffeine in a few min

3 Likes