@Thyassa it’s nice to see you and Adam creating a known neuron. I think you will be great additions to the known neuron list.
What is the reason that the payload of the proposal doesn’t match the title of the proposal? You are not registering neuron ID ‘10113435617292303472’ as indicated in the title, which is Adam’s neuron that he has been using to submit many proposals recently. The payload registers neuron ‘12977943926061800402’. Hence, this proposal is inaccurate in the current form.
Do you want folks to reject so you can correct the registration with a follow up proposal? If not, then why would you submit a proposal with misleading information? What is the actual relationship between these two neurons?
@Lorimer typically you are a stickler to good form on proposals. Why would you be willing to accept a proposal that has a title that says one thing and then a payload that says something else? What’s wrong with rejecting this proposal and then letting Adam submit it again with the accurate information? This proposal will dictate what gets displayed on the dashboard and will forever have inaccurate content if it is adopted.
I agree, especially with the large number of people who have recently have issues with following / receiving rewards. It should be more clear how this works.
IMO there should be standards for known neurons voting participation in order to stay listed as known neurons. I.E. if a known neuron stops voting for X # of days, or misses X% of votes in a given time period they should be delisted.
@Severin@Ang@samuelburri will you please fix these AI auto hide features? It’s very frustrating to post on the forum these days when so much is hidden that doesn’t need to be hidden. There is nothing wrong with my post above. It shouldn’t warrant auto hide.
Yeah you just need to have ONE followee that doesn’t vote to screw your vote in case of 50/50 . Exactly what I say first comment. We need to give a followee a bit more power
The payload is indeed aligned with the announcement. It’s the payload that’s used when this proposal executes, not the title. The neuron in the title also verifiably belongs to the proposer (it’s the neuron that was used to propose the known neuron). I basically don’t see the issue you’re wanting to protect against.
If you’d like me to point you to proposals submitted by DFINITY that accidentally get things wrong in the proposal summary or title, and yet I’ve adopted anyway (as long as the issue has been flagged and there aren’t any significant ramifications) then I will.
Different standards are applied to different types of proposals based on their criticality and the potential for dangerous attack vectors.
Personally I believe DAOs should be able to be the economic beneficiaries of Node Providers. It doesn’t really matter if DAO holders benefit if they don’t control the data center relationship, legally and practically.
That said, a whole fuss was indeed made about UBOs, even if they have no legal rights whatsoever.
Therefore I do think it would be somewhat hypocritical to permit an anonymous DAO that cannot be KYC’d to be a node provider, even if I don’t think it’s actually an issue.
It is important to be consistent on the application of rules.
Correct. I think with the dao owning nodes it should be mandatory to disclose any large investors whom control enough vp to halt all governance.
For instance with traditional companies anything under 25% is considered to not be reported while we have seen 22% vp in a dao halt all progress with the project.
The dao should disclose if any large investors also node providers themselves. This would be a good step to discover node clusters.
For ntn dao it’s been discovered that Adam owns a significant portion of vp through using three wallets during the sns sale. This would end up becoming a node cluster as ntn turns out to be partially controlled and owned by the same entity looking to run nodes under draggin corp.
Oh great David you are checking the forums. Maybe you can enlighten us on how Rivionia/9 yards owns part of parafi capital, yet a subsidy paradi tech is completely independent?
And this point
All easily verifiable by google searches.
I did ask a simole question qhich was ignored by @andy-parafi but it really needs to be addressed. Saying you dont own part of a subsiduary is the same as using a shell company. Neither is a good look. Why don’t you volunteer for the KYC process?
In my opinion it all comes down to how the finances flow. If they flow directly between two parties, it’s difficult to argue that they’re independent.
My understanding is that the NNS is capable (today, without any modification) of distributing node rewards to arbitrary principals. If a DAO receives a portion of node rewards directly from the NNS, and the NNS distributes the other portion to NP(s) who are maintaining those node(s), I don’t think there’s a need to consider the two parties (DAO and NP) interdependent (particularly if the NP is staked in a way that can be slashed or acting as collateral for the physical machines).
I consider this to be the case for DAOs, or other forms of NP investment. The trouble is when the financial relations between NPs/investors take place off-chain, where it’s harder to account for.
Great we can then agree that draggin corp and ntn dao are not independent parties as we have a partial view of money flow from Adam to ntn. That would make them a node cluster correct?
Its hilarious that youre so concerned about these entities which currently own/control ZERO nodes. While ignoring others who have active nodes that are interconnected.
