Is cycle-dao functional?

The home page lists no members any longer. Norton Wang appears to have abandoned Arthur Falls has not uploaded a podcast in months, as far as I can tell. It would be nice if members of the group discussed what, if anything, went wrong. Also, it would be good to receive an update on its status as a named neuron. Is it now just set to follow other neurons or is someone still actively voting on cycle-dao’s behalf?


This is a good question

This is why we need neurons to periodically confirm their followees. We did vote on that or something right? I can’t remember.


You’re right, best to wait till December rather than getting important information now.

I don’t think he’s proposing we wait, just confirming that action has been taking and that this semi-handled long term. I think everyone would like cycle dao and the folks involved to be a bit more vocal. I know many of those folks are working diligently behind the scenes. I actually don’t consider it to be a good thing that devs and project leads are having to become bureaucratic politicians, but that is where we are at right now.


I wasn’t being facetious I honestly couldn’t remember if we had a longer term fix for this.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I’ve been incredible heads down lately building. Somewhere along the way I accidentally started neglecting my twitter presence and the forums a bit… Consequently, I just haven’t felt like I’m able to give these lower level issues the amount of attention they deserve.

For what it’s worth I’m still very much around and here for the long run.


I sympathize, it is (at least to me) a surprising amount of work to even analyze and have an opinion on such a broad surface area of low level decisions.


I find that, like with any muscle, the more you use it the better it gets. Keeping up to date with the forum is very time-consuming though, that I agree. :smiley:

We are no longer deliberating on proposals. Instead, we are following ICPMN.

I have been working on a blog post series that gives a bit of background on cycle_dao for a few months. It was a lot of work most of us had serious projects that consumed a lot of our time. Personally, I feel the current NNS governance paradigm is a bit off. That said, the working groups are an amazing step forward.

Expect some posts on how we can evolve NNS governance to pop up soon. These may create a pathway to reform cycle_dao.

Regardless, it still votes so you don’t need to change your follows.


Thank you, I look forward to the blog post series and your insights on issues with NNS governance.

1 Like

This is one of my main concerns. We only have 5 groups that are the primary nodes that people follow. One less now I guess. We need to work to bring about governance changes so that we have more groups and people. I am all for having the Flower DAO be one of them as well. But it does concern me greatly that power rests in the hands of a few groups. If most of those groups were to be compromised it would not be good.


It’s actually not an issue. Power rests in the hands of the proposal creators. We only have one of those - the DFINITY Foundation. Voting serves to provide legitimacy but given there is no one else to vote for, all we have is a brake and accelerator, no steering wheel.

It’s like Singapore, a benevolent* autocracy. We can change it by stepping outside the current system but it will require massive change.

1 Like

I was under the impression that votes approved code commits to the network to upgrade itself. Is that not the case?

Yup. That is correct