And to correct you for the 1000th time.
There is no complex vp grab going on. Learn to read white papers and to invest accordingly. Everything has been straight and honest. Don’t blame others for your lack of due diligence
1 Like
But dfinity doesn’t do that.
They did by restricting the decentralized organizations treasury. They are playing banker
The voting power controlled by NF does not seem to be voting.Are you talking about Borovan? I think that’s part of the market behavior.
I am talking about the nns enacting restrictions for sns projects to utilize their money due.
ICPCC DAO LLC has no impact on ICP, it only takes ICP out and consumes it. Dont even see it giving any value to its token. Only way it to survive a little longer is to sell tokens, but than anyone can take it over. Dead DAO-s are meant to exchange hands.
1 Like
Do you think NNS should not control SNS?
The nns does not control sns projects.
It is a framework that allows projects to utilize on chain governance and it definitely should not play banker with these projects funds.
But the entire chain is controlled by the NNS. One way or another, the NNS will always retain actual control.This is also a recognition of the value of ICP.This is only possible through special subnets like “Utopia”
They should step away from playing governor if they want to offer the space an actual decent decentralized launch pad
Maybe I am missing something fundamental here but it looks like there were a few early daos whose main purpose from an outsider looking in was to extract value, dump, cash out and never look back.
To have these empty husks remain as the pioneers of the dao system is pretty appalling. What you see now is that a community or commitee of people can unite and reshape these broken husks. They can be reborn as something the IC can be proud of.
The only decision is if you wish to join or observe from afar.
This is the system working as intended. If the people who truly believed in the dao had either staked their ownership or continued to build post sns, this would not be possible.
This is a natural evolution of the ecosystem. You cannot create something that has the potential to run forever and then exit without consequences.
This is the beauty of ic governance. Its not about who has most money but who has most conviction and dedication!
8 Likes
Please keep the same energy of “it’s the natural evolution”
And push for the treasury restrictions to be removed as that is removing the “natural” portion of this so called “evolution”
1 Like
Half of my X is filled with your posts as ICPfinder and then I enter the forum to see you made few hundred posts everywhere.
3 Likes
It must be weird that there is a community member who is actively participating in the ecosystem voicing their concerns while other founders are attempting to kill other projects in the community.
Sad to see you go the route you have since I’ve been a vocal supporter of your projects. Even weirder that you find issues with a community member being passionate about the ecosystem and future here.
1 Like
Actually, I think the worst attacks are when it only takes 20% of an SNS voting power to paralyze and/or destroy an SNS. NFID Wallet is a great example. Good product, good team, well conceived and executed project, and yet all of a sudden Adam decides that they did something wrong and he single handedly owns enough voting power to block proposal 17 to fund the NFID foundation for a quarter or proposal 18 to set proposal topics. It doesn’t take much to hurt a project when the threshold for critical proposals is 2/3 majority, which means the threshold to paralyze a project is only 1/3.
This is currently a weakness for ICVC, DecideAI, Catalyze, KongSwap, GoldDAO, NFID Wallet, and Nuance based on how much of the swap commitment Adam was able to buy. It gives him enough voting power in each of those SNS projects to make progress difficult and in some cases he is actively paralyzing all progress.
What he is doing to ICPCC (e.g. proposal 64) really sucks for the people who are passionate about the project (of which there are many, some who are ICP OGs with large followings), but at least he is taking it over by actually having to purchase 40+ % of the SNS. He can turn it into something else and build a new community just like he did for SNS-1. That’s at least better than leaving a project paralyzed.
1 Like
@wpb
Youre neglecting to mention the fact that 40% of the nfidw dao failed to vote on either proposal.
But whatever fits your narrative, i guess.
Im not sure its a narrative. Adam is quite open about what hes doing to these projects. Its no secret.
1 Like
Ok I hold some nfidw. And i voted yes on both proposals.
I dont know what adams motives are for what he does or how he votes. (And it shouldnt matter because holders are monetarily incentivized to act in the best interest of the project they hold).
It makes no sense to buy a ton of the tokens just to kill the project thats literally just lighting money on fire, could you explain how this is beneficial to him?
Is it possible he is simply not satisfied with the progress the team made in their first quarter, and would like to see some tangible progress before shipping 30k + icp out of the treasury? I personally cant see any difference in the product since it launched. Maybe investors in projects holding the team accountable to actually achieve milestones is a good thing.
And again the votes failed because 40% of the dao did not vote.
2 Likes
Quick analysis on NFID Wallet proposal 18, which is currently live with 3 days left in the voting period. It is possible to track the votes of every SNS neuron, but only while the proposal is live. I’m curious if the largest Neuron’s Fund participants are voting on SNS proposals. In the table below, all the neurons of the 4 largest Neuron’s Fund participants are listed. They accounted for 44% of the total swap commitment at NFID Wallet launch (which is almost all of the Neuron’s Fund commitment) and it appears that they own around 16% total voting power in the NFID SNS today. Not a single neuron has voted yet. I’ll check back in a few days to see if any of these neurons end up voting. I’ve seen people claim that Neuron’s Fund participants typically don’t vote. Perhaps that is true for the largest Neuron’s Fund contributors. More than likely, the largest Neuron’s Fund contributors intentionally do not participate in governance for legal and/or tax reasons, yet they participate in the Neuron’s Fund because it is a way for them to support the ICP community. If it is true that they typically don’t vote, then the 2/3 majority definition of critical proposals is even more stringent than intended, which also makes the 1/3 threshold to paralyze a SNS even easier to achieve.
As a point of reference, the last 6 NFID proposal tallies are provided in the table below. All have roughly the same voter turnout as the current live proposal 18, which means there is not likely to be much more voting even though there is 3 days left in the voting period. Notice that all prior proposals were rejected with 20.939% - 21.871% total voting power to reject. This is slightly more than the total voting power that Adam owns directly, which is 20.63% total voting power in the NFID SNS.
2 Likes
The licence of the source code of the IC is owner by Dfinity or the protocol ?
If Dfinity owns the source code license, they can fork it and stating otherwise is a lie. Or perhaps by “you”, you meant the guy you talked to but i dont think so.
If the majority of voting power does not follow the ethic standards of Dfinity ( and / or rest of society ) they will just fork it.
Decentralised ? Rofl
1 Like