100 ICP has been accidentally sent to the nICP ledger
They have to be sent back to their original wallet
WaterNeuron leader do not want to make the canister change required for “security reasons” stating that they want to keep original ledger fork from Dfinity.
So here are the unfortunates issues that can be interpreted :
Leaders of DAO have such fear about creating a fork in the ledger and make change ( here to send back those ICP ) .
Ledger aren’t humain mistake proof ( why can they keep ICP they aren’t supposed to get )
Here are several ways to solve this :
Waterneuron DAO currently is having the control of the ICP can simply keep those 100 ICP and send the same amount to the original wallet
Waterneuron leader fork the ledger, add the code required for the transfer, and switch back to original fork. ( This would prevent any special maintenance cost due to differences )
The foundation provide a new version of the ledger allowing sending ICP ( adding and endpoint to the ICRC-1 ) or preventing them to receive ICP ( with proactive action ).
A mix of 3 and 2 where the foundation provide a safe code allowing the sending to occure.
Any suggestions ?
Keep in mind that with ICP price rising, this issue will also be more important.
I understand that it isn’t nice to loose the ICP but I think there is some basic knowledge missing here,
Firstly “the leaders of the DAO” don’t own the ledger canister, the DAO does, so they has as much say in this as their voting power gives them, it’s up with the DAO to make such descisions
Regarding preventing such transactions, the ledger is just an other canister with some methods that obey by a standard (icrc), if somebody want to make an other canister with ledger like features, how are you going to prevent the user sending tokens to it while it might be used for one of the functionalities?
Next up, if you send your tokens to a wrong address on ethereum it’s also gone, same logic applies here.
As for the suggestion; do small transactions first before sending a large sum.
Indeed basic understanding of the situation is missing, let me correct you :
The ICP isnt lost
You can always try to make me believe the DAO owner cant pass such a proposal. But that’s is not going to happen.
I explained above several suggestion to deal with this kind of situation, maybe you should read it again.
Again its not gone so repeating it wont make me believe it more, it will just show the world how biased you are in not helping to solve this.
If none here is willing to help, I will probably do a prediction market and bet that this transaction ( returning the money ) will not occure within 10 years. Once the icp price will 10x or 100x it could become dealthy convincing, maybe they will change their mind.
And guess what, in EU ( and probably worldwide ) when some funds are sent to the wrong adresse, the people in charge HAVE to give it back.
So Enzo and Léo can always try to hide behind their* DAO. Since the DAO follow their neuron ( and would anyway have no reason to disagree with this transfer ) they should do it.
Obviously they dont want to :
Been ignored on my direct messages
They try to hide behind the DAO
They don’t support me ( their silence is deafening while they know I post here)
I think it will be very entertaining, in long term, to see what happens to doxxed people that keep themself between someone ( or a prediction market ) and the funds.
I understand your frustration, you copied the wrong principal and sent 100ICP to it, tx.
I’m sure the WaterNeuron community wants to see you recover the funds, and would be more than willing to help. However, I don’t think we should fork the IRCRC-1 ledger canister from DFINITY. If the ICRC1 ledger canister gets a new function that allows mis-sent funds to be sent back to their origin, we can then make a proposal to upgrade the nICP ledger and you can get your funds back.
We had lengthy discussions in the WaterNeuron Telegram with you and other community members such as @Lorimer, @tiago89, and @quint. Here is a screenshot to prove it, along with the message link:
This was after been ignored after understanding the issue. Find below message from 2 week ago. It’s only after that I started to write on the public discussion of Waterneuron since you didn’t show any intention to help on private message.
Léo didnt even care to say anything. I also wrote him both twitter and Telegram.
Not sure why all those beautiful people wouldn’t be following your 5 known neurons to optimise their rewards. You just need to make one proposal and it passes ( and you know it right ? Its just an excuse that have no real reason to be here tbh )
The only thing is that you dont want to make a fork - claiming some security reasons -
Great it’s time to open the discussion with Dfinity to make it happen ! I am sure they are also willing to help precious SNS’s leading the ecosystem make their community happy.
But somehow the fact that I have been ignored before makes me doubt your ( and Léo ) sincerity.
I understand this is not a kind of work that is pleasant to do, it just has to be done.
Since you like screenshot here find below in French 2 weeks ago. On twitter its even older and don’t try to say that you were not on Telegram, there are lots of message of you every day on the Waterneuron public channel…
@Doudi the WaterNeuron dev team are busy people with a lot to juggle. Just because you don’t get a response immediately, it doesn’t mean that you’re being ignored.
Regarding the pressure you’re trying to place on the WaterNeuron DAO to resolve your issue, as others have pointed out this pressure is misplaced. The ledge canister is part of the SNS suit maintained by DFINITY. SNS upgrades are handled by a process where new deployments are first blessed by NNS proposal. This is how the SNS infrastructure has been designed from the start.
SNSs are provided as a system functionality by the Internet Computer Protocol in that the code for the SNS canisters is maintained by the Internet Computer Protocol […] More concretely, this means that the NNS community approved the original SNS canisters’ code and continuously approves new improved SNS versions.
If you are not adding constructive comment, you can refrain from writing here
The following quote from your link exactly explain that they can adapt their Ledger, did you even read it ?
Citation A SNS that is self-deployed, manually upgraded, and hosted on an application subnet. Any SNS community can choose to deploy the SNS code, which is open source, on an application subnet. They can then choose to follow the blessed upgrade path or deviate from this path
For that you don’t even need this quote, just look who is the controler.
It has been more than two week and I have not gotten any feedback like “We will work something out, just be patient” while they have all the infos and the power to do it.
I believe you’re confusing different types of SNS. A ‘self-deployed’ SNS is very different to a ‘system-provided’ SNS. WaterNeuron is a system-provided SNS.
