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

[ohsalmeron]

I didn’t want to, but I’m joining the shit show.

We’re 4 years since ICP launched, how many projects are still alive?

Being practical: capital drives things, in crypto and everywhere else. Buyouts, mergers… it’s part of the game, just like in traditional business. That’s whale game.

If we do public sales, we’re also aware that the buyers can do as they please with their tokens and voting power, I’ve been thinking about this for a while in the spectrum of decentralization and it always narrows down to the same, you can’t control what others own.

My concrete proposal: less division, more collaboration. Let’s find common ground and actively build alliances. Those of us still here are valuable.

United, we’re stronger.

[infu]

Maybe you are just a passionate community member. You seem to like WTN, I proposed for its voting system to proportionally represent voters, then exposed a possible attack on the IC and you got all upset. Not sure why. WTN value will be higher if all WTN holders get represented. The 51% attack I am concerned about is WTN, not ICPCC.
Among other things, the WTN price chart supports the hypothesis.

[Mico]

You must not remember our exchange on x.

I remember telling you that the wtn team is actually looking to implement your idea and they have even created a thread asking for granular voting mechanics to be created in line with your idea.

Later on x you said “youll believe it when you see it”

So even when the wtn team supports your proposal to improve you continue to create issues and drama in line with adams motives to control icp.

I even in the telegram channel supported your proposal and vouched for you when others were heavily against it as I thought of you as a genuine defi builder who stands for what is right vs adams hostile takeover approach.

[Mico]

Your chart by the way is misleading and filled with speculation. Unless you can show the accounts whom control 51% of the dao you are just acting childish to try and sound correct.

[borovan]

Hah this is my typical day.

[Mico]

It is funny because the chart doesn’t take into account the massive amount of wtn you dumped onto the market as well as the inflation from the second sns sale.

Only titled to support your narrative instead of expose your market manipulation.

[Mico]

Lets just ignore this as well as the constant sell pressure from the second sns sale being fully liquid at launch allowing participants to sell if they please.

[Mico]

And then lets act like a low liquid token would not be affected by a sale that encompassed ~half of the total wtn in the liquidity pool post sale.

But hey, that doesn’t fit the 51% narrative adam is pushing onto everyone.

[wpb]

I don’t understand the notes on your WTN price chart. Where did you get it and what are the comments trying to suggest? Will you please clarify?

There isn’t enough liquid WTN for anyone to achieve anywhere close to a 51% attack on WTN whether they try to buy it off a DEX or they make a big commitment during one of the decentralization swaps. There are too many WTN participants and the token distribution is pretty well decentralized. Almost everyone has staked their tokens for max duration, including the second swap participants who received their tokens in a fully liquid form over a 9 week distribution. Something like 85% of all WTN tokens are staked today. Claims of a 51% takeover for WTN would be woefully inaccurate.

[Mico]

The price chart just reflects Adam’s major dump coupled with his relentless attack on the dao.

Other than that infu is either being lied to by Adam or is a willing participant in this campaign to kill yet another dao.

[Mico]

Tbh I thought we learned to look deeper after sbf took advantage of icp at launch. Turns out sbf is inspiring Adam to do the same with our ecosystem lol

[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.

[wpb]

All the WTN that Adam dumped on the market had zero impact on the WTN SNS. All the nICP that Adam dumped and all the token unlocks that he is trying to influence among various SNS projects does nothing but make purchase of nICP more attractive.

DEX price for nICP goes down…enjoy a nice return by purchasing the nICP at an 10% discount and unlocking the nICP stake.
More nICP gets unlocked…the more attractive the nICP returns are relative to NNS stakers.

It doesn’t matter what attack vector is tried against the WTN project, all it does is make WTN more attractive. The token dynamics seem rock solid. If you know, you know.

[Mico]

The price chart infu is trying to push as a 51% attack is directly related to Adam dumping and dilution of the original sns sale.

[Mico]

Turns out your specific solution adds more complexity and doesn’t solve the issue you think it does. That aside I was one of the few who supported hearing your approach more. Leo and Enzo also supported the approach and made improvements that they felt would solve the issue more directly than what you proposed.

[borovan]

@Mico

Turns out your specific solution adds more complexity and doesn’t solve the issue you think it does. That aside I was one of the few who supported hearing your approach more. Leo and Enzo also supported the approach and made improvements that they felt would solve the issue more directly than what you proposed.

No, they proposed an overly complex plan disguised as a solution that would have required recoding the NNS lol. They knew what they were doing.

[Mico]

Now could you please address your chart?

The tag lines are misleading and don’t encompass the actual events that happened during the second sns sale with Adam dumping ~50% of the wtn at market price.

Surely you can’t think that had no price impact on the token and that your original chart more accurately depicts the situation.

[Mico]

Just like you know what you’re doing with this false narrative of a 51% attack.

[wpb]

Someday, I hope you go back and read my comments in their entirety with an objective perspective. I think you will find that my main point was that your proposal wasn’t solving the biggest and best opportunity to improve the distribution of WTN voting power on the Vote for NNS Proposals.

[Mico]

I can’t imagine you think removing ~41 percent of the icp in the lp while adding ~50 percent of sns tokens to the lp would not have the negative affect on the chart that it did.