ICP Dev community needs to get it together

I don’t know where to start.

-Agree on a token standard, please. Please. It’s been almost a year since genesis, how are we still discussing this? NFT standard AND Token Standard.

-Agree on a .icp domain service! there are 3 now and people have invested thousands of ICP on these platforms and NO ONE has vetted or talked about which team will actually be integrated and used!

-Stop focusing on stupid stuff!! Dom’s insane tax proposal, People parties, even announcing EVM at first was a mistake because people just used the delay as fud! Also stop focusing so much on Ysyms proposals WHO CARES?

I am a 8year holder I just want to see stuff being built on IC. This past year has been filled with disappointment as i try to get these teams to talk to each other and compromise… and all they say is :

“Oh that team is building a competing standard, we will compete with him and let the market choose”

Well guess what, THE COMMUNITY IS CONFUSED!! WE NEED TO AGREE ON MOVING THE IC FORWARD!

7 Likes

I agree, I’m honestly tired of reading a new thread on how to fix spam proposals everyday when there are much bigger issues to solve.
standards

2 Likes

In the Developer Discord weekly update last week, @quint brought up a great idea for a community .icp domain service.

Currently, all of the .icp domain services are owned by an individual or independent group of developers. There’s no protection against a rug pull.

What I would love to see is a developer that creates a simple canister that allows you to pay for a unique domain name to link to your address and own/rent it with visibility for the community, and then to blackhole that canister.

Any future updates with additional features can be done through creating a “new version” canister that is backwards compatible, and then if the data for a .icp domain → address mapping does not exist, forward the request to the old canister and pull that state into the “new version” canister for the .icp domain service.

Each new version would be blackholed and secure, and it would be up to the community whether they want to just continue using the original version of the domain service canister, or any of the upgraded ones with additional functionality.

This is a call to the community for someone to build this! You could charge a fractional amount of ICP or maybe a fixed cycle cost for new domain registrations, etc. and then blackhole the canister and receive passive income for years to come.

3 Likes

No, we don’t need to “get it together” just for the sake of getting it together. I am sick of governance proposals though. +1 to that

Is the community is confused? No, we’re just discussing a variety of problems/issues and have differing opinions on how to solve them. We’re not issuing a mandate to consolidate or Will Smith slapping them into submission, there’s literally a war of ideas going on, but in an open and engaging way with a goal of improving the IC for users and developers.

The back and forth discussion on the forums shows that there isn’t a clear path forward to solve certain issues related to governance proposals and rewards, which imo is a fundamental part of the IC. You can have a great project like the IC, but the IC hangs on the NNS, which hangs on governance - so governance is arguably more important than any feature that will hit the IC this year and beyond.

Without solid governance mechanisms, I’d argue you’re building on sand.

I don’t think we’re anywhere close to warning or panic, but this is the first notable “attack” on the network through those governance rewards, which is why the conversation has drifted from new features/technical issues to → “let’s get our structural integrity back in order”

Also, with respect to the token standards issue, have you seen this Announcing "Token Standard" as topic of the first meeting of the Ledger & Tokenization Working Group - they’re meeting 2 times a month to discuss the token standards. There’s many great ideas that are going to be hashed out, but its going to take time.

Also, as a tip - when I want to mute the governance discussion I just filter by developers or general.

The lack of uniformity in token standards is indeed a difficult problem, and now developers have to work individually instead of forming a common growing ecosystem.

We organized a Canister Builder DAO with developers in Asia (and tried to unite all developers worldwide) to encourage standardization and shared infrastructure, and now we are trying to influence the community as much as possible.

https://twitter.com/cbd_icp

3 Likes

Can someone fill me in? What was/is the “attack” that is being referenced here?

There are currently a lot of spam governance proposals because the rewards earned from voting on them outweigh the penalty incurred from them being rejected.

1 Like

That’s a nice initiative, but it should have been done months ago, not right before DeFi is about to start. That’s where the frustration comes from, we had 1 year to sit around and discuss token standards but we waited for the last minute and now we have to rush it to meet DeFi’s demand, but as soon as spam proposal became an issue there hasn’t been 1 day without a new thread on how to solve the problem.

2 Likes

I see a discussion thread name spaced interface, and in particular higher-order interface seems like a nice way allowing multiple interfaces to co-exist. So we don’t all have to agree on the same standard upfront, as long as support for new standards can be added retrospectively?

1 Like

Sheesh. I was wondering why i was receiving so many rewards. I was worried about the inflation rate.

I suppose the solution isn’t as simple as raising the cost of a rejected proposal since there’s always gonna be someone with enough ICP staked so that the rewards are greater than the ICP sacrificed in the spam proposal. And limiting the number of proposals someone can submit within a specific timeframe wouldn’t work either since ppl can make as many internet Identities as they want.

What viable solutions have been discussed?

1 Like

If you navigate to the governance category using the developer forum category filters, you’ll see all of the ongoing topic ideas and discussion.

I suggest going about a month back (to the end of March ‘22) and then starting your reading from there.

1 Like

Agree on the wrong standard and one ends up suffering for it forever. This is already going on to a minor degree. Abstaining from bikeshedding is certainly a virtue, but ‘just move in a direction’ without concrete proposals of which direction and why is not likely to produce any positive results.

2 Likes