The whitepaper answers all those questions on Section 3 (Investment Process) and details the role of Evaluators on 5.2.
In short:
1 - They have 15 sequential steps that will be voted by all neurons on the platform (internal voting).
2 - Evaluators will.
3 - Yes, there will be an “initial voting”, that needs SNS vote to pass. If pass, a thorough due diligence and grading process is done, and everyone has access to the information (so they can grade).
Hope this summary helps, feel free to look into the whitepaper for deeper details.
This does look as a very well thought out product, think it has all the arguments to succeed
I only thought the Evaluators and the grading system (as an effective signal system) is not yet very ironed out, but after the sale you can revisit it deeper.
From the whitepaper, it does seem that anyone can become an evaluator (very low/easy requirements) and grades will follow a popular contest (as final grade is average of many evaluator grades).
Maybe I am being pessimist, but if an approved project is worth 500k$-2M$, it does give enough incentives for a team to setup a horde of evaluators, and vote strongly in favor of a certain project. Can you confirm if my theory might actually play out (assuming no course correction is done)?
Another concern I have is that Evaluators (that have little stake, like 100 ICVC) are not incentivized for grading low a project, as the only chance they have of gaining money is on profits of investments done. A not approved project, always represents a 0% return on their time. Imagine they work and refuse 10 projects, they are never paid for a value they actually added
Also they have a “low risk” context, which can be dangerous and outweigh the more conservative VCs.
As I always like a good challenge, here are a few ideas that could improve this component:
evaluators should always be held accountable / have a reputation system. They can be rewarded based on how they voted, and how the company actually performs in metrics and in exit. It’s common practice for startups to provide these growth metrics to VCs.
Try to see the evaluators and grading system, as the “competitive advantage” of ICVC over other vc funds/syndicates, and it needs to learn and capitalize on the “blockchain / historic data” that it accumulates over the years, so that previous performance “signals” future performance. And again, evaluators and grade system are key for that.
Try to see evaluators as prediction market agents, with a lot of qualified / competent evaluators working and competing for guessing the performance of the venture.
You should have higher requirements on the evaluators, maybe they have a trial contribution phase (grades don’t count for average), where after 3 investment processes, their work is publicly shown to Token holders and they need to be approved by DAO vote. And in inverse order, whenever an evaluator isn’t contributing regularly or being bad at grading/prediction, they can lose their “role”.
To avoid someone giving 7 on all grades (basically farming), and even the human tendency to gravitate around a grade they feel comfortable about, you can add a bigger “weight” of the vote, if it goes away from historical average.
Averages are only a part of the signal, please consider to give 1st and 3rd quartile (or a graph showing distribution of the votes), to see if evaluators were consensual (lower risk - enough information) or strongly disagreed (higher risk - not enough information).
Hope some of these ideas help in the future.
Highly looking forward to see this DAO blossom (as well as the ecosystem)
Hi @tiago89 - thanks for your comment, we really appreciate this detailed feedback. We are reviewing your comments and will post a detailed answer shortly.
I sincerely hope this is a legitimate project with a genuine team behind it.
SNS DAO having only 11 participants (who could potentially be the same person), it has already gained access to 110,346 ICP from the Neurons fund.
I’m more worried about the projects that ICVC will be investing in not being legitimate or following through with their promises (either intentionally or unintentionally). It’ll certainly be interesting to see how this pans out.
Yes, 11 contributors (or less) have gotten access to 100K plus ICP.
Both ICA and Dfinity voted positive to the SNS proposal. Assuming this was not decisions taken flipping a coin it would be interesting to know the justifications for these votes.
I would have loved to join the SNS if the minimum participation amount was lower, with the information at hand 1000 ICP is to much of a risk to consider.
After the SNS we peasants can still get involved for smaller sums if we can buy tokens on exchanges, right?
I made 2 nuerons on the icvc staking of 44 tokens each and icvc stole them from me. No reply or nothing now im out 7 icp that i used on icp swap to swap from icp to icvc. Biggest scam ever.
There is a Telegram group named “ICVC Official” where the admins could help you out, and the project website at https://ic-vc.com/ lists a contact email address if info@ic-vc.com
I do know from a recent question and answer in the Telegram group that there is a minimum stake of 100ICP so maybe your problem is related to that.
I traded 9 icp for icvc on icp swap, sent 132.5 icvc to my tokens to the network nervous system. Went to nueron staking, clicked on icvc made two nuerons of 44 each. And the icvc is just gone. I never got a message of minimum amount to stake is 100 it went through and all icvc dissapeared.
