Thank you very much to the community for the warm reception of ICVC and for the interesting questions on the forum. We encourage more of these questions and remain fully available to answer and engage in community discussions. On that note, we’ll be posting a lot of information on our Twitter, so make sure to follow us there (@icvcofficial).
We thank DFinity for flagging the max neuron constraint and upcoming update to the NNS. As a result of this information we are working on updating our tokenomics parameters and will need to postpone the SNS proposal past Monday, July 22nd. We will post our updated parameters, as well as an updated timeline for our SNS shortly.
Thank you for your understanding and continued support.
But the funds would be sitting in the treasury, controlled by the DAO (the people who invested). For example, they could review and approve subsequent proposals to unlock funds from the treasury to the development team, couldn’t they? (just because SNSs haven’t operated exactly this way in the past doesn’t mean they couldn’t)
How is this sort of problem addressed by ICVC? Isn’t there even more danger in this case, precisely because decentralisation hasn’t occurred before handing funds over? Do you have a take on this @LukeDugdale or @Isaac_ICVC?
Early stage startup funding is also inherently risky with a higher potential for failure. Add that to the risks of devs running off with the money (because it’s easier than delivering a project) and it seems like ICVC is undoing some of the intentional aspects of SNS sales. How would ICVC realistically protect against this?
This all comes down to the configured parameters of the SNS swap. I think the examples provided indicate token holders making bad choices to invest in the wrong projects (at least in relation to their expectations).
I think one of the other unfortunate things is Daos like Openchat integrate and rely on other Dapps to pull info like token prices. If they Dao that they rely on chooses to stop running or just does not keep up with their product, now OC is forced to recode their integration with someone else … Looking at you icpcoins.
Following the max neuron constraint and update to the NNS flagged by DFinity, we have updated our tokenomics to remain under the 100,000 SNS neuron limit.
ICVC will put forward a SNS proposal to the NNS on 29/07/2024.
We will release our open sourced code early next week. Please find our SNS init yaml and updated tokenomics below:
Why are you intentionally limiting the amount of time that the community has to perform proper due dilligence on your codebase? Why not simply open source it now? Your original plan was to launch in two days’ time wasn’t it?
Based on the whitepaper, half (1M $ICP) is already committed by unknown LPs who will essentially have the majority and make all the decisions, even if the full amount is raised. Who are they? DFINITY? Is it even “they,” or is it just one person? @dominicwilliams is this you? Case closed.
P.S. On a serious note, why is 1k $ICP the minimum now? This is harsh.
Thanks @LukeDugdale. I’m still trying to get my head around the idea of how funds are protected.
What measures are in place to stop recipients of funds running off with the money and not delivering anything at all? If this just comes down to trust, I guess that’s fine if it’s explicit and understood by those who will be voting on this proposal.
A term sheet must be signed by the startup before receiving any funds. This term sheet aligns with standard practices in the venture capital space. While it does not guarantee that the startup won’t face failure, it does protect the venture fund (and its ‘limited partners’) from potential misuse of the invested funds.
The ICVC model is designed to closely align with traditional VC models. It’s important to note that no investment model, including ICVC, is entirely risk-free. However, the ICVC model does not present more risk than traditional VC models.
Addressing concerns about ensuring developers are not raising funds with the intent to misuse them, the “Team” evaluation is a critical part of our due diligence process. This includes a comprehensive video interview to vet the team thoroughly and understand their true motivations.
Furthermore, the ICVC due diligence process is very extensive. Startups aiming to raise through ICVC, and subsequently pursue an SNS, will undergo a rigorous due diligence process. This process is significantly more thorough than the information required to submit an SNS, ensuring a higher level of scrutiny and evaluation.
I’d expect traditional VCs would reserve the right to take legal action if funds are abused. But I’m not sure how this would/could work with ICVC.
This is something I liked very much when skimming through the whitepaper. I’m interested to see how this turns out, and I applaud ICVC for giving this a go. I’ll be following with interest.
Out of interest, are you able to point to any specific projects that the ICVC team think were/are ripe for this sort of funding? Perhaps some projects that didn’t work out, or didn’t get off the ground, or projects that are on your radar and you’re hoping ICVC may be able to help?
The DAO will be represented by a corporate entity, ICVC LLC, incorporated in the Marshall Islands. More information can be found on the MIDAO website.
This corporate personhood allows ICVC to sign a term sheet with the venture raising funds, creating a legal liability between the startups and ICVC. Therefore, the DAO can take legal action against startups if they misuse the funds or attempt to rug pull the DAO.
Thanks @clement_icp / @Orlando, I’m not a legal expert, but I wouldn’t expect it to be that simple in practice. It would be great if people more knowledgeable on this (other than those with vested interests in this project) could chime in on this conversation.
Legal proceedings would no doubt be a multi-stage process, surely requiring physical representation, backwards and forwards communication and mediation, fees, liabilities, the question of jurisdiction… Are you able to run through a couple of scenarios from start to finish identifying how this would actually work? Presumably you’ve already thought all of this through and have received the necessary legal advise. I think it’s a very important component if ICVC is claiming to reserve the right/ability to take legal action (and actually execute on that).
Apologies if I missed these details in the whitepaper (sometimes there are too many whitepapers and too little time). I appreciate ICVC answering my questions.
We have updated our init file to align our time units across all inputs in order to resolve conversion and rounding issues due to month and year conversions being done differently by the NNS.This issue is detailed here for reference: SNS.yaml: month and year conversion to seconds
Furthermore, we have added a developer neuron in order to satisfy NNS conditions that at least one developer neuron be included in the SNS proposal. This developer neuron is configured as follows:
This developer neuron will be handled by the ICVC DAO development team and used to submit proposals and updates to the ICVC DAO SNS.
As a result of this technical requirement by the NNS, the ICVC DAO decentralisation swap will be for 19,999,900 $ICVC tokens of a total supply of 20,000,000 $ICVC tokens.
WHITEPAPER UPDATE:
The ICVC DAO confirmation text has been added to the init file. Swap participants will be required to confirm the ICVC DAO’s terms and conditions in order to participate in the ICVC DAO SNS Swap.
We are therefore unable to submit the ICVC DAO SNS proposal to the NNS at this time. We will submit this proposal as soon as possible this week and remain available to answer any questions and engage in community discussions in the meantime.
For wtn to do that we will need to know if there will be a cap on canister controlled neurons. Otherwise by adding icp to the 8yr neuron we will reduce the maximum amount of nICP that will be minted.
As well ICP does need a form of VC capital that is transparent to the community and open for everyone to join regardless of the financial situation they are in. This almost seems like a mutual fund that holds a “high risk” portfolio of startup tech companies. The major issue I see with this project is:
How will projects be vetted for funding?
Who will be conducting the research into the team, project, product market fit, market analysis?
Will all information be available to the dao to review prior to funding proposals to verify the review done by the team?