IMO Psychedelic does build a lot of open services and they do document them very well. I would like to see more co-operation and positive-sum games on IC. That being said, DFINITY should also make effort to promote or include other services building on IC. That’s why a simple dapp/service catalog might be beneficial.
DFINITY shills = good on-chain reputation = good take-off velocity. DFINITY should also stay away from promoting centralized dapps and projects that are only here to extract tokens from the community, I don’t want to name them but it is pretty obvious to most of the developers building on IC
Ultimately the value of the network will depend on builders building cool stuff and the users using them. If we harm the users/builders with monopolistic anti-trust practices we might lose them to a better alternative (can only think of a fork right now)
Nah Psychedelic is just a multi-million fund whose aim is to buy out projects on the IC, quick slapdash job of projects and compete with everyone. Basically monopolise as much of the IC with venture capital money and kill off real projects.
Well done Dfinity, you have a dip20 token standard that doesn’t work that you are promoting. Plug wallet is very buggy, and so many options.
Does the foundation understand the word decentralisation?
We certainly won’t have any problem if Dfinity official just introduce the difference between principals and account IDs, Our concern is due to the power and influence that Dfinity official carries, if users see this article they would probably think plug and ICNS is an officially designated project, which would undermining other projects’ effort and chance to be discovered.
In addition, DIP20 is just an example, but at the moment it’s unfair to only talk about DIP20 and not mention other great token standards. We believe Dfinity official should value their words more carefully, because expressing their own subjective view would probably impact users’ decision.
This is indeed some case examples, but solely demonstrate particular project is not unfair to other projects besides plug and ICNS, that’s why we are making those comments. Thank you for your proposal, we are actively communicating with dfinity.
We are also wondering is there any way we can contact Dfinity and provide feedbacks except the official forum? There are a few things I would like to say about this article.
It is understandable to provide users with specific examples. But it’s not appropriate to demonstrate particular project in the official document. It could have been better if Dfinity official let Plug and ICNS do a demonstration in the forum by themselves. We hope Dfinity official would take fairness into consideration when demonstrate in the official documentation. It would be unfair to the known projects in the wiki, when Dfinity only mention particular project in the official documentation.
I think for some of your answers, there’s some misunderstood, we are not asking any wallet to replace the current mention of the plug. It’s just as official, Dfinity shouldn’t express any subjective value to list particular project in the official document for demonstration and like you said, the documentation needs more links to give users a complete picture of the IC ecology, we agree on that as well.
I’m sure the dfinity folks are friendly and open to discussion, but as an open blockchain ecosystem, would an open and transparent discussion of issues raised by the community be a better way to go?
DM someone from DFINITY on the forum. I’d be happy to implement what I can on my own, or relay to the correct team.
Write an email to someone. The addresses are not hard to find
Write someone on Linkedin
The docs pages have a link at the bottom that says “Edit this page”. While the repo is not quite yet ready for external contributions, I think you can already raise issues in it and post recommendations what could be changed. This is the one we’d like to see most at the moment
I’m sure Diego has another good idea to contact someone.
From now on, we will try to mention more players or not mention any at all in a much more fair way.
Giving Feedback
I realize after reading this that I am biased because I am often inundated by DMs across the developer forum or Twitter.
To answer @Tyler 's question (and also show how we will iterate)
We envisioned the #1 place for feedback on docs would be the docs Github page and that is why we added the “edit this page” button to every page on the smartcontracts.org. Here is the “edit this page” button and we find very few people select it or submit pull requests, so we will also see how we can make this more prominent.
In 2020 hindsight, what confused me was less the place and the more the tenor of the original post.
It was less a “Hey folks, I think you may want to change X” and instead you had a post (while intellectually honest and fair) that calls the documentation work:
“improper”
“damaging”
“harmful”
“irresponsible”
I think your post was honest and fair, but I did wonder, “Do @ais and I come off as so unapproachable that folks think we need this tenor to listen to their feedback?”
Hi Guys, there are still mistakes with this pull request. First it mentions (e.g. DFT, IS20, DRC20 and EXT) as NFT standards, but most of these are fungible token standards. Second, it gives a DEX example using the dip20 flow, which is far from being a finalised token standard for payment flows on the IC. I think it would be better to remove the DEX example as well, and I believe there is an ongoing discussion with Witter, myself and members of the community about how to improve the ledger standard. Including this example, without examples for the others, really undermines the community’s efforts here.
“NFT standards for the Internet Computer (e.g. DFT, IS20, DRC20 and EXT), but for the purposes of this tutorial we use DIP-721. You can see a quick introduction on YouTube.”
Meant to quote you in the above message ^^ Can we get the following removed?
"Depositing tokens is more straightforward because DIP20 and other token standards provide a richer interface to interact with.
"
This serves no other purpose than to boost the SEO of dip20 on the IC, and is actually encouraging unsafe code practices. No need to mention dip20 imo, why not just mention the standard Ethereum flow. (which is not suitable for IC development hence why we have notify in the first place). It is not simpler and is detracting from the community’s efforts to have a safe payment flow.
