I think @wpb should explain why he unanimously rejected that proposal
Hi,
has now executed, but I donât think it commenced a 13 node subnet
That is right, it did not. The only thing this proposal created is it added a rental request to the Subnet Rental Canister (find it here).
What happens next is that the Swiss Subnet AG will try to add new nodes in Switzerland (through ordinary NNS proposals to add nodes, see here), mentioning that approved rental request as a âjustificationâ for adding more nodes in Switzerland and ultimately as a justification to form a new subnet (see e.g., here). The nodes will not all be owned by Swiss Subnet AG, but by different entities. Ultimately, the ICP community gets to vote on these individual proposals still, allowing for carefully vetted nodes to be added to the network only.
Finally, when the subnet has been created with the proposal, the protocol will allow only the principal specified in the rental request to install canisters etc. on this subnet.
The Swiss Subnet AG has then the privilege to create canisters etc. on this subnet, other ICP users do not. It is up to the Swiss Subnet AG to allow other users to install canisters and more at their discretion â that is the privilege theyâll get by renting this subnet.
I hope the process is a bit more clear now!
3 Likes
I voted to Adopt proposal 136408 with both my NNS neuron and my WTN neuron. Why do you make up lies about how I vote instead of just asking me @borovan? You are turning into one of the most dishonest people in the ICP ecosystem with all this constant misinformation. It shouldnât be allowed, but for some reason @Leadership wonât take the rules of the forum seriously when it comes to you @borovan. At best your messages get hidden, yet readily visible to anyone who wants to know what you have to say.
1 Like
Iâm sorry Wenzel, my bad.
I meant to say unilateral not unanimous.
Didnât you vote to reject this proposal lol.
I am interested in your reasoning for voting to reject this proposal with your wtn neurons.
1 Like
my wtn neurons have no say, the 51% controls waterneuron and they said no.
They literally have no say. Just because the whole cabal hasnât voted yet doesnât mean anything. I voted yes on the NNS FYI.
Interesting. You voted against your own interests to try and spin a narrative that wtn âshadow cabalâ voted to reject this. When in reality you pushed it over the edge for rejection.
2 Likes
For starters, Adam rejected this proposal with his wtn neurons which contributed the reject vote being cast.
If he had voted to adopt the reject portion would only be at 49% and the adopt would be at 39.48%.
As well as you can see different wtn neurons belonging to either early contributors or devs voted independently of eachother.
https://forum.dfinity.org/t/introducing-the-swiss-subnet-a-secure-and-compliant-blockchain-infrastructure-leveraging-the-internet-computer-protocol/41135/30?u=mico
1 Like
No I just press either Yes or No randomly because I know itâs 51% controlled.
The fact that youâve decided thatâs what you want to use to your advantage, whatever, thatâs up to you. I just find it tiresome.
You showed your hand with the 67.007% vote lol.
I know it must be painful to be exposed on this narrative. Itâs okay to take some time to word your reasonings for rejecting the vote and or for not taking governance seriously in a dao you find to have a potential governance attack vector.
I am not sure why you raise these concerns though if you tend to not care to vote with an informed position anyways. It is probably better you set a following of people who do take this responsibility seriously and engage with other voters.
1 Like
How does this nuance make your lie any better? I have no control over how others vote on these NNS or WTN proposals, so why are you claiming that I have anything to do with anyoneâs vote other than my own. I have explained this to you numerous times and it is posted on our websites (synapse.vote and codegov.org). Your continual claim and insinuation otherwise is an outright lie. This example plus numerous others of similar nature makes you one of the most dishonest people in the ICP ecosystem. Itâs a shame really.
1 Like
@infu thank you for this wonderful example and post. Letâs see how it translates to Adam though.
1 Like
Erm no heâs a great dev. I just invested in most SNSes to help the ecosystem. Those guys had gratitude and helped me out, and as a result Iâm happy I was there to fund them.
Good luck with thatâŚitâs cute that you think you are making an impact. Unless DFINITY decides to make major changes to the definition of liquid democracy, you wonât change my goal of helping advance decentralization of the NNS and specific SNS projects in credible and reliable ways. Iâm confident that Iâm on the right side of history on this one.
2 Likes
Advance centralisation you mean. Youâve been coveting voting power since day one, with no skin in the game.
ummm guys, this thread is about a swiss subnet.
can we stop arguing about who voted what and discuss why or why not this should be passed? I am curious to know thoughts of people more knowledgable than me about subnet architecture and what the ramifications of this passing would be ( I have no clue!)
2 Likes