Is anybody else concerned about the multiple 51% attacks on the sns daos?

[infu]

@Mico You can reread the proposal. [Proposal to upgrade WaterNeuron voting system] It doesn’t sound like anyone agreed. The proposal was pretty clear; you can paste it in chatGPT and it will understand it all right away. Instead, I was dragged through 50 posts that appeared to be trying to spread confusion, then somehow end up with the conclusion that I am against the liquid democracy framework and the NNS should change it. Later, WTN devs also came to Wenzel’s conclusion. That’s why I am skeptical and think there is some spam forum warfare going on, trying to wear other users down and not participate in discussions. After all this, @Mico you went against us as well.

The chatGPT output based on the first post.

---

What’s happening now?

• WaterNeuron (WTN) is like a middleman between its users and the main Internet Computer voting system (called NNS).
• When proposals come up on the NNS, WTN users vote on a mirror copy inside WTN.
• Based on the outcome, WTN decides how to vote on the real NNS proposal.
• The problem? If one person or group controls over 50% of WTN voting power, they control everything, and the rest of the voters don’t matter anymore. This could be dangerous.

---

What’s being proposed?

• Instead of everyone inside WTN voting together as one big blob, each user’s vote should count individually, based on how much voting power (VP) they have.
• So if someone holds 10% of the voting power, and 70% of WTN users participated in a vote, their vote would influence 14.28% of the ICP tokens WTN is staking.
  (That’s: 10% divided by 70% = ~14.28%)

---

Now tell me, how do the rest of the thread posts and questions make any sense? Going to take some out.

@wpb

The votes that have been cast by WTN neuron owners are 100% according to the decisions that each individual neuron owner has made. Perhaps the right thing to do is for folks to start taking their voting power seriously enough to actually lift a finger and set up their following according to what they think is in their own best interest using the tools that are already available. We don’t need some complicated new voting mechanism when we don’t even have people taking personal responsibility for how their own voting power is triggered. The tools exist to make sure you vote your own way. Perhaps when the actual voting power controlled by WaterNeuron is significant it would make more sense to divide the voting power into smaller batches. Today, however, it doesn’t solve the real problem. The real problem is lack of people taking personal responsibility for their own vote.

@wpb

Are you suggesting that WaterNeuron should own more than 1 NNS known neuron? How would NNS voters decide which one to follow? Again, the amount of NNS total voting power that the WaterNeuron known neuron controls directly is only 0.8% VP today. Do you want to split that into smaller chunks? Why?

@wpb

Where exactly is the lack of network security for WTN? Nobody can even clearly define what problem is being solved. I see no improvement.

@wpb

That problem is solved on the WTN governance side by having more known neurons and whales who decide to take personal responsibility for their own vote instead of simply following some

@wpb

Every known neuron, and every private neuron, in the WTN SNS is capable of controlling their own vote on NNS proposals. They can relay the vote from any NNS known neuron that they want and it can be automatic. This capability has been out there since day 1.

@wpb

This is false. The NNS voting power goes to 100% of the WTN holders.

@wpb

The WaterNeuron design follows the same liquid democracy framework that is foundational to all SNS and NNS governance. It sounds like you are arguing against liquid democracy as it is currently defined for ICP. That’s a fair concern and needs to be dealt with at the NNS level, not at the individual SNS level.