I’m not sure if this is in another post already but Adam is right. There is a pattern here with devs taking advantage of the community and the Neuron Fund. I see it with several projects unfortunately. It has been abused as a “free lunch”.
I had a bad feeling from day 1 that there was not enough due diligence behind these launches, no requirements for roadmaps with milestones and with completion dates, no reporting requirements, and no team evaluation requirements.
Despite some devs having good intentions, they are just that. Some super small teams who are web3 devs but who have 0 business experience in getting their business plans off the ground. Since there’s a reverse gas model on ICP, web2 users can easily come to use these dapps and there are no requirement to have crypto necessarily which should make it easy to onboard users unlike other chain’s dapps but these teams have 0 clue for how to attract users to their dapps it seems or they have flawed business plans and/or poorly designed/executed dapps to begin with.
Many of these dapps did not have enough produced prior to launch.
Many of these dapps had very few devs and/or team members.
Many of these dapps did wildly unrealistic pitches.
Many of these dapps created just enough material, an “impressive” but misleading whitepaper and such but basically all fluff and junk like Estate Dao.
ICVC is a better thought out multi-stage funding system.
I propose that the SNS DAO system on the NNS implement a multi-stage system. It should take multiple votes prior to any SNS launches in the future. It should not just be a single decentralization sale. It should be more like ICVC. Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, etc. The Neuron fund itself only gets activated at a later stage if the project is actually progressing through the stages and is meeting all the criteria as well as receiving the votes from the community to continue on.
And what about mandating regular reporting before any team is allowed to request Treasury funds and proving that they have met milestones? There needs to be accountability and they must be in constant contact and updating investors and the community on a regular basis and definitely be reachable and have customer service for investors and users. It is not okay to be silent forever and show nothing and to ignore everyone as well and get away with it. This would never fly for publicly traded companies or even for startups that are VC funded so why is this being allowed?
Any thoughts about this and for how to improve the SNS DAO system as it currently stands? I think this is an important topic to discuss thoroughly here esp. if we now are going to have many more launches coming due to it being easier to develop on the chain.
Or dare I suggest it but MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE NO SNS LAUNCH SYSTEM AT ALL in terms of raising funds directly via the NNS. You must use other means to raise funds prior to proposing a community vote to be listed as an SNS DAO for decentralization on the NNS. The NNS itself then strictly acts like the stock market for DAO’s but we completely eliminate the entire funding mechanism from the NNS entirely and leave it to other much more detailed and niche dapps to properly fill in this function like an ICVC or Funded or standard multi-round private equity/VC or the Olympus Accelerator, etc. Why kickstart in the NNS at all when it seems the community does not have enough information to make informed decisions to begin with despite the intros on the forum?