ICDevs.org is getting back into governance...but we need your support

Developers Showcase
21

Austin, this is great news! The narrative is powerful.

IC enthusiasts have always understood in the back of our heads that just like Satoshi needed to leave BTC in order to have a truly decentralized development ecosystem, DFINITY also always needed to have a community hand-off to make the IC a truly decentralized community project. They never got there.

My first reaction at the end of the Caffeine/Mission70/NationStateAlliance disaster was that DFINITY had crashed the plane and that this was the end of the road. But reflecting on this further, the tech is still here! I think this is all just a catalyst and the “Satoshi Sign-off” moment for the IC has come sooner rather than later. It would be even easier if DFINITY would resign, open source the rest of their code, say that they are no longer developing at the protocol level and pursue their own side projects.

But as you mentioned, the future is uncertain and this in my mind is starting to look more like a mutiny since realistically would DFINITY ever step down? Project Mutiny. Let’s take over the IC. A sliver of Internet Computer hope for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

22

Hey Austin,

Thanks for the detailed response and the context on the bounties—that $171k in funding for open source work on mops.one is solid, no argument there.

That said, my main issue with ICDevs wasn’t the bounty program. It was the broader positioning and decision-making, especially around governance and independence. Stepping back from SNS voting and NNS proposals after conflicts is understandable on one level, but from my perspective it left ICDevs looking reactive rather than principled—especially when DFINITY was clearly steering things. The “we got out because lawyers said so and DFINITY was just going to do what they wanted anyway” vibe came across as excusing a lack of real pushback.

And honestly, the fact that Weasel is strongly supporting you and ICDevs is a big red flag for me. His track record and pattern of behavior have shown me he’s a bad actor in this ecosystem—someone who consistently prioritizes certain agendas over transparent, community-first development. That association makes it hard for me to view ICDevs as fully independent or aligned with the kind of decentralized ethos I care about.

23

why not make a groupchat or server or sumn, or if one exists why not link it

24

Wenzel what an earth are you wearing?

12518
125181080×1125 191 KB

25

I edited this with AI to try and help the reader (Austin)

I’m curious if your cynicism and general attitude toward AI-driven workflows is still the same.

I hear you loud and clear on the frustration and disillusionment. I’m wondering if that was a momentary perspective from a different point in time, or if you still feel the same way today.

For example, if someone is using agentic AI to build something, they may not know what they don’t know. If the AI is making things up, and they don’t have the experience to catch it, they may genuinely have no idea they’re being misled. Feedback like yours is valuable because it points out those issues directly.

To be fair to them, they may not know. To be fair to you, there is no repo to review. That’s a loop of death we all know exists with these AI workflows.

My questions are:

  1. Would you be willing to create or contribute to a standard feedback document that outlines:
    • What developers need to show
    • Where they need to show it
    • Common do’s and don’ts

This would prevent the same conversations from happening over and over again.

  1. If you’re reviewing projects, repos, and codebases on your own time, that’s work. What would reasonable compensation look like in USD or ICP?
  2. Could there be a system where developers in training contribute toward reviews, educational materials, or even donations to support ICDevs while receiving meaningful feedback on real projects?
  3. The fact that you’re willing to review repos is exciting. Many of us are genuinely trying to learn. Looking at projects and providing thoughtful feedback takes time, and simply responding with “bro, your code sucks” doesn’t help anyone improve.

For newer developers, especially those using agentic workflows, it seems like there could be value in reviewing toy projects and explaining mistakes so people can gradually learn healthy development practices. Over time, that could lead to a hybrid approach where people understand both manual development and AI-assisted workflows.

  1. Would there be value in creating a dedicated space for this kind of learning, even if participation required paying a fee? I’m not sure how it would be structured technically or legally, but I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Personally, I like the idea of supporting what you’re building. What interests me most is creating educational opportunities that help people learn how to feed themselves long term rather than simply handing them a single meal.

Your time deserves consideration too.

These are the “sniff sniff your butt” questions I’d want answered before making a final move and deciding where I invest my time, energy, and ICP.

I also have a few questions for my legal advisor. Speaking only for myself, this may simply be the direction I need to go so I can stop contributing to the nonsense and focus on actually learning.

I totally understand this is a lot to ask given the size of my stake. Still, if it’s possible for me and others to receive that kind of valuable feedback, I think it would be worth it.

Not on Discord. Not on Twitter. Just a basic forum or Discourse-style environment where the information is searchable, archived, and accessible.

I also think the output could have value beyond the individual receiving the feedback. For example, if someone submits an NFT project and you identify a series of issues, that review could become a written case study or recorded lecture that newer developers can learn from later.

Maybe that’s an ideological fantasy, but if even part of it is possible, I’d happily direct my rewards and votes toward supporting something like that.

At that point, my investment wouldn’t just be financial. It would feel like I received an education from it as well. That would completely change my perspective and give me hope that I got as much value out of the experience as I would have from spending another $10,000 on higher education.

26

Perhaps this should have been an email message but it might be worth having the public conversation.

If you feel otherwise and don’t want to engage in this topic here on the forum, and would rather wait until you and ICDevs are more stable with your own platform I understand.

Thanks