If you want ICP price to go 10-100x than its needed for ICP to be controlled by fewer people. Because they can control pumping and dumping time. But if those people have no intention to get big price movement, then they just drain money out like parasites.
At this point it does not matter if its centralised or not, if project cant grow in price, users or in adoption, it wont have bright future.
Adam is just stealing project funds, killing them. This increases distrust in ecosystem and is bad for ICP token itself.
2 Likes
The kind of pump Adam is bringing to the eco has not been seen in a long while,
1 Like
I know but they’re all spinning it as negative. I’m just trying to get rid of actual scams and voting power grabs and replace them with legitimate projects.
12 Likes
Good work, kindly work on nfidw… Destro insulted us and tricked us… He promised an airdrop which was in the tokenomics, after a while he shared a very low % of what was originally agreed… He been acting on the nfidw dao as a tirant
1 Like
Crazy how you keep saying how this is a bad thing? Yet Adam is literally using how OWN money to take over scams… Projects who have failed to deliver and had more than enough time to do so. Hes recreating them and doing so will bring value..
You are part of the problem if you see this as bad
5 Likes
That’s not very web3 of him!
Yes, well I think it personally makes business sense just to have Oisy wallet and just get rid of the others. That’s my view, feel free to try and change it.
2 Likes
I want to kiss adam’s big wrinkle-free little web3 tyrant forehead for pumping my bags and cleaning house
2 Likes
That’s dumb. Just use the wallet you like and let others build wallets so others can use what they like.
1 Like
Wrinkle free little web3 tyrant for head
Well he bought the coins that we’re on the market. What’s wrong with that?? Nothing → free market
2 Likes
It’s the same point if a dev keeps control and why treasury restrictions were put in place.
If one person owns the supply then there is no accountability for them to work hard to bring value. They can just pass the transfer proposal with out having to complete anything
He bought the coins that were on the market, that’s literally how free markets work. If people didn’t want a single actor to acquire them, they shouldn’t have sold. You can’t have it both ways: calling it decentralized but then complaining when someone uses that decentralization to participate more actively.
The DAO didn’t get exploited or hacked, the community voluntarily sold their voting power. That’s not his fault. If anything, it shows he has skin in the game, unlike many who expect value without contributing or investing.
9 Likes
Many of the tokens were primarily intended to provide liquidity and decentralise, not to be entirely acquired by a wealthy individual, especially not by one of the DAO’s main investors seeking to take control.
I cannot think a better model for the use of these tokens, but for me it seems clear that the way it is now, is not good.
I don’t even know how to describe what is happening to these projects. You invest your money to the development of the project, and they just get your money and disappear without delivering anything.
That is what i have seen with all these projects. Scam after scam. I do not put my money on anything anymore until there is a mechanism of accountability and transparency of what is being delivered and how much that cost.
Actually i think that disappearing with these scammers from the ecosystem is good, since they do not deliver anything.
If it is good the way it is happening, i am not sure… need to see the results.
For what i have seen until now, i am hopeless. So anything new is welcome.
2 Likes
Each case must be considered on its own merits. Not all projects were scams; many simply lacked adequate funding from the outset.
A typical blockchain developer commands a salary of around $300,000 per year — approximately 60,000 ICP. With that in mind, projects such as OpenFPL and Seers can reasonably be ruled out as scams, given their relatively small treasuries, the fact that they managed to deliver working products, and that they continue to push proposals.
For slightly larger teams — say, five developers — it remains somewhat understandable for projects to have spent up to 300,000 ICP, with Catalyze being a possible example, though even that appears rather optimistic. Yral, admittedly, is much harder to justify. However, they did manage to develop several applications and seem to possess a strong understanding of the Internet Computer.
Ultimately, none of these teams were sufficiently funded to sustain operations over the long term. Even Adam’s support proved inadequate, particularly given the prolonged bear market and the considerable evolution of the Internet Computer over the past few years.
The broader issue facing the Internet Computer ecosystem is a chronic lack of funding and venture capital. Access to capital remains extremely limited, and what little there is tends to be concentrated in the hands of the foundation. This dynamic has made it exceptionally difficult for independent teams to build and scale sustainable projects over time.
2 Likes
Well said, mate. Couldnt agree more.
That’s why we need different development models—open source, built and maintained by the community. I truly believe that with fewer resources, we could actually achieve much more. I currently work as a frontend developer for a company, and I’m studying how to build on the Internet Computer (ICP).
I’d love to see more communities collaborating around shared codebases, with clear proposals and tasks that individuals can take on independently. That would help me learn more while contributing to something meaningful. Even if the work is unpaid, the experience and learning would be totally worth it. I believe many people would be more willing to collaborate under those conditions.
1 Like
At the end of the day, what Adam is doing is not inherently wrong — reallocating funds to improve efficiency can be a reasonable strategy. However, the manner in which he goes about it, through intimidation, is deeply problematic in my view.
Perhaps a better system would involve the NNS approving ideas and allocating funds, while allowing any developer to participate in open bounties to complete the work. Such an approach could foster greater efficiency and true decentralisation. As things stand, the SNS model already feels as though it has died.
There’s a whole community of developers eager to contribute to meaningful projects. So why not welcome them and share a portion of the money that would otherwise go to a single developer working independently, without any oversight or collaboration from the community?
When someone proposes a DAO where developers can manage projects, organize tasks, and allocate funds to contributors who simply join, build, and get paid for what they deliver—that’s when things will truly start to change.
Right now, Web3 is still operating under Web2 principles: projects controlled by companies or individuals who hold the funding and dictate the development. We’ll only reach the true spirit of Web3 when projects are open source, built by the community—who are also the investors and active participants.