Let's talk about SNS

General
1

Hello guys，I just a fans about ICP，I wanna say SNS must out of control
We have previously discussed this in groups: if SNS is not liberalized, it will become a systemic barrier, preventing external capital and small project teams from entering; because there is no global ledger for the ICP chain, small project teams issuing tokens are untrustworthy (contracts can be altered at any time).

Why does this form a barrier to trust? Because project teams can only issue tokens on SNS, and it’s only through unanimous confirmation by NNS that a trusted consensus can be established based on the trust mechanism of the DAO. When this mechanism for a trustworthy consensus is not a universal tool but a top-down governing power, it loses the first principle of equal freedom. Because you not only need to be in the purview of the foundation in advance, but you also need to have a large community scale before you get on SNS. Therefore, it will block most bottom-up grassroots entrepreneurial projects and many retail investors’ cognition. It will even subtly instill a prejudice in the community: Projects that are not on SNS are not trustworthy.

For project teams participating in SNS, due to the lack of an effective trust mechanism, they need to crowdfund on SNS, which means giving up a significant portion of funds and commissions to SNS and NNS investors. This portion of non-user stakers receiving dividends occupies a large part of the project’s dividends. Is this fair? Obviously, such expenditures resembling toll fees occupying such a large proportion of the project are not so justified. On the contrary, a project team only needs to pay a GAS fee to issue tokens and deploy contracts on ETH. This greatly impedes the ICP community’s grassroots forces and speculative capital.

Stepping back, while this is beneficial for those who stake ICP, it is detrimental to the internal community dividends of this project. That is, a large part of the benefits for actual Dapp participants and OGs are taken away by other ICP stakers who don’t use this Dapp and the foundation. This is clearly not conducive to the dividend effect within the Dapp community. It could possibly result in the suppression of the project’s community after it successfully lists on SNS, and even many early participants may leave the application due to low dividends. The decrease in community activity within the application, the devaluation of tokens, and eventually, the investors may also be harmed.

In this view, SNS constitutes a hindrance for both project teams and investors. It appears to be a benefit for ICP stakers on the surface, but it gradually dissolves the vitality of the ICP community at a deeper level.

Based on the above views, I think ICP’s SNS mechanism is a mechanism that moves forward in form but backward in effect. It is not beneficial for the co-construction of the ICP community.

I believe the setup of SNS should exist merely as a community trust tool. The foundation should just disconnect it from NNS and the foundation, making it a freely usable token issuance trust system. It can be closely attached to the token standard or the official manual, rather than a power mechanism. Or it could simply clone a public sns, allowing anyone to have a DAO-based trust consensus ledger available for use. The current SNS is a democratization (DAO) process after power concentration (NNS), not a democratic (DAO) form in the free market that can be participated in and exited at any time.

This is why we need real freedom, not democracy after power concentration.

The SNS that Dom supported is an excellent tool. It realized the trustless DAO process in the contract. When SNS is liberalized to the free market, I think it represents the real form of DAO, a perfect DAO mechanism unseen in other chains. I also heard Dom say in a recent interview that he has to be very careful in the early stage;

Perhaps the liberalization of SNS is also in the roadmap of IC.

I welcome everyone to discuss this together. Let’s all put forward our thoughts to make the IC community better!

1 Like
2

TL;DR let’s start a riot, not enough drama with Sonic so let’s spam the forum if CryptoTwitter FUD gets ignored !

1 Like
3

:rofl: not FUD just rock

4

First of all "SNS must Be Liberalized "is a terrible translation from whatever language. Second it has nothing to do with trust.
“It will even subtly instill a prejudice in the community: Projects that are not on SNS are not trustworthy.”
that is just pure nonsense. And so forth …

2 Likes
5

yeah，all you need to do is understand what I’m saying，It seems you’ve understood, so that’s great.

6

In a democracy the project in this case should provide information and reasons for their project to be accepted to receive funding. DFINITY stated their reason and requirements to get their support by asking this project to have a security audit done, the result should have not been a surprise.

Voters should never be questioned about their reasons for their voting decision just because you don’t like their decision.

It is up to a project to satisfy the majority of voters to succeed and the community to ask questions and relay their dislikes or expectations for funding.

Personal views on the outcome are just that and these projects should do more to satisfy the voting community.

Don stated that not all projects will succeed and by asking for a list of requirements to be considered for funding is a protection to us as investors and supporters that we have a better outcome.

DFINITY will not say that a project can not be built on the IC and those projects that do not succeed in funding can still be built on the IC.

2 Likes
7

I think the IC community lacks a startup board for low - and mid-range developers to make SNS the best quality project startup board, because many projects need funds in the past two years and SNS really needs high requirements. This is not good for ecological development, and may reduce the number of new developers moving into IC, because new developers will see if the existing projects are living well! In addition to decentralization, everyone can trade, everyone is responsible for their own actions, so the launch board of low - and mid-range projects should be necessary

1 Like
8

I believe that if a project wants funding to build on the IC then I have a set of personal views of what I would like in a project for funding and for my time in Governance.

It seems to me that the only projects that we are locked in talking about are funded projects but isn’t the IC about more.

We are trying to change the traditional old Web design, dominance and taking of our identities.

I am tired of the constant begging, for me personally, to give 5 stars, thumbs up, how am I enjoying the app when I do not agree and I believe the consensus out there is why we like the IC and want to make changes.

Are there any projects out there that would like to build on the IC that are large and already running with deep pockets of their own.

Can we on the IC remove the need for organisations to require usernames and passwords and overcome the billions stolen from families.

Be able to audit those who break our code of ethics and be audited for the authorities to deal with.

Are there other processes that we are able to remove duplication and streamline which in return could bring us the community income for our neurons and time spent in Governance and also funding?

So far, some of the projects who want our funding seem to be behaving just like the old web and telling us how it will be. We are the Governors and the majority rules.

Maybe we could fund, create our own project and select the people to build these systems.

3 Likes
9

Yes! Few people develop a project for a hobby, unless he is already rich and free! And the complex SNS startup board has blocked a part of the current and potential developers willing to develop in IC, they are now very hard to stick to because of the bear market, and even some have left! We in the IC community should ask ourselves, what causes developers to lose momentum and leave? Should we have a less rigid startup board where these teams can raise some money to stay afloat? I won’t deny the great design and achievement of SNS at all, but not every project is suitable for SNS, if the PEPE project had chosen SNS to start, I think it would have been rejected 100% from the start, in fact they have disturbed the whole crypto world, we are killing off some talented teams, which is bad for IC! If there were more Pepes, maybe they wouldn’t bring innovation to the technology, but these developers would have the resources to bring in a lot of new users and wallet education. We should take a developmental perspective, and every adult will be responsible for their investment behavior! At the moment, I don’t have the ability to develop such a startup board. I just hope that anyone who has the ability can come forward. With the integration of ETH coming soon, it may be a new opportunity for prosperity!

3 Likes
10

Only really good technicians should participate in SNS

11

That’s what I want to say. SNS is a very good technology, and we should open it up to everyone without restrictions

12

The problem I see with this is, your ledgers will be DAO governed, but the DAO may not be decentralized (or be able to prove that), so the security won’t be much different from deploying your own ledger. You can deploy your own version of the SNS (open source), but then you will have to audit it, advertise it, integrate it, and prove decentralization, etc…

The SNS is also a process that gets all these sorted for you. If you want to get the process benefits, you need to comply with its requirements. Then at the end, that process gives you a trust stamp, sure. It doesn’t mean other DAO launchpads on the IC can’t make an even better process.

2 Likes
13

Great answer to a long post that seems to misunderstand the value proposition of the NNS:SNS model of building a cohesive community of individuals and organisations with common interests and shared purpose. Sure it can appear messy as per the intense discussion around the Sonic SNS launch, but patience, goodwill and robust processes as we build the ICP community together is what will stop it ripping apart at the seams as it grows much larger with many more participants.
“Rome wasn’t built in a day” is a well known quote for good reasons.

1 Like
14

Pepe and Dogecoin prove that small investors care very little about technology, they care about something they like, and if the network is good enough (Ethereum in this case) many will invest in relatively useless coins for fun and profit.

Pepe is over 600 Million dollars now in under a month, whatever you think that is remarkable.

Even more remarkable is Dogecoin, basically another memecoin with a marketcap of wait for it… over 10 Billion USD.

Like in fashion, not every product makes sense, but people vote with their wallets.

1 Like