Hopefully November we coordinate launchpad launches we are only delaying to include as many canisters that were/are part of ongoing research groups, speaking of which…a token of our appreciation to the community, it is still research grade, but a lot of research nonetheless. This is part of the Hive Mind program funded by @MForum focusing in several universities in math-cryptography among other things including post grads and different universities we supervised this and optimized it and for the sake of privacy it’s open source prior to the SNS
Which universities?
Do you have any references to their work or who they are?
I don’t think you should be decentralising a canister that is a research effort and doesn’t actually do anything usable yet or have any users or anything depending on it. To me it seems like a token gesture. It doesn’t mean anything for the DAO to have control over it, as anyone could deploy an instance and it would be just as valuable.
Just my perspective, but does that make sense?
You can always register a working canister with the same DAO later, post-launch, once it’s actually ready. Is this canister reproducibly buildable?
Maybe it’s just me but I’m struggling to see how these various canisters slot together and what the unified story is. I think ONICAI’s prior SNS launch attempt had a similar issue, and they’re planning a new launch attempt soon with a stripped down proposal focusing on just one of the suite of protocols they’ve built.
Every canister registered with a DAO can be a burden as much as it can be a strength. Every canister needs to add something (because there’s a complexity and attention cost that hampers effective decentralisation and the cost of being a participant).
- You guys have built some awesome stuff with great speed!
- I’d recommend you don’t do an SNS. Don’t we have enough evidence that the platform is fundamental broken? (Not technically, but philosophically, ie: it is fragile and not endowed with the “whatever” is necessary to make daos go. Not a condemnation as no one has cracked this yet.) And there seems to be little to no indication that DFINITY has the resources or inclination to do the exploratory work required to make it work.
- In regards to the quote, the SNS was NEVER set up for businesses. It is set up for DAOs. DAOs have open source code. Period. I’d suggest operating as a business and use business style fundraising until you can “decentralize” within the spirit of what that “means.”
Vitalik told us token voting was a terrible way to run a dao years ago, and yet here we are still trying to make something work that is obviously a terrible idea. I think you are putting your entire project in peril by doing an SNS.
If you guys can build a freakin solana transaction encoder you can probably handle a better fundraising platform.(You already have one and it was cool!)
I have the SNS suite like 90% converted to motoko…least worst case you should launch an independent swap that has governance you can actually experiment with and improve without waiting around for Dfinity. With a motoko version you may actually start to get some community contribution and support.
We are not going to decentralize this canister just yet, it’s open source now for community review, the internal repo for it is being audited-reviewed. Critical canisters that have been in production-tested and bear custody risk-burden for licensing are a priority like the cross chain swaps-main canister obviously the privacy ledger is a prime candidate, but since it might not be eligible for the August SNS it could be added later, hence we open sourced its code. The Hive Mind project produced the LTC node also open source, Post Quantum canister signers and several other projects. It’s a known program and with different faculties submitted PoCs that are later developed into full products.
Mercatura Forum grant program keeps grantees and student information confidential, but the full production work was done by our researchers they are all in the org. Partner universities are not partnered with Menese but as part of The Forum initiative we have first access-co development some universities include Cairo University, UH Cairo, MIU, Sinai University and select researchers from ITI
We do have a cross chain platform, which with some effort we can raise on, but we don’t have the infrastructure to decentralize and avoid custody issues needed to scale compliantly, so worst case scenario we would do the raise outside then SNS but this is still a mess we do agree SNS as a framework has had issues but we are trying to focus on the good parts and tweak it a little for our use cases
Interested in this Motoko sns version to see how it would work compliantly actually, if you thought the solana encoders-decoders were hard the nightmare was Ton 
@skilesare
Hey @Lorimer we have one of the largest university collab efforts in MENA as we run the regions the largest founder in residence program which is long term, some contributors-depts work on small libs and small contributions some take whole projects, we have research groups with paid grants in 15 universities all of whom btw participated in WCHL last year for example and had a special hosting in govt celebration etc, @MeneseProtocol is just giving credit to the program, but ownership-maintenance of the ledger is theirs’
Hey, cool I don’t doubt it but what I’d like if possible are some references to material these third parties should have at some point posted somewhere on the internet.
When it comes to fund raising via an SNS claims like this need something to back them up. It would be very strange for this to be true but there be nothing that can be pointed to except claims.
Again you still don’t seem to grasp that there is no use case.
You can’t have it both ways.
We will vote to reject, don’t take it personally as a business, and keep up the great work. Best of luck.
The code is there for people to use, but for it to exist small pieces had to be contributed by different people hence us giving credit to the program making it possible… Which is definitely better than us claiming it was entirely done by us you know what I mean? There are some legal considerations touching this point, but it’s not our place to explain the program is run form @mforum campus and I think you will find a lot of third parties talking about it..I don’t think we claimed that any of those initiatives leading this are part of the sns we just thanked those funding it
The open source question has been answered everyone, we will open source part of the canisters not the full work, we will not open source and have it rejected or fund that are raised insufficient(bear in mind the system has not proven itself to be either sustainable nor efficient in recent raises) . Once it crosses our minimum it will be open sourced, we respect you for choosing your values and we are sticking to what’s good for us and our community.
If the SNS model works for us and it passes then we will open source otherwise, we will just use-design another platform and focus our marketing-campaigns on it
You are free to vote whatever you like, obviously we are better judges of our own use cases-constraints and such. We believe the community would want to have an actual proper protocol that is run responsibly as a business, it the sns that’s trying to invent this new paradigm thats not working…in investments you generally have Due diligence DD which covers this but DD is not given to doctors and taxi drivers..same as code bases its available for DD for competent community reviewers. We respect how you will vote..that’s it
Never said that, what we are better though is knowing and following the rules of engagement with regard for SNS. We didn’t set the rules but we agree with them.
We just tried to warn you that you shouldn’t waste time and energy that could be channeled elsewhere, with all due respect. If you don’t appreciate the feedback it is up to you as a business to make the sensible decision and move forward.
While you brought it up I 100% agree that open source can be forked, modified and looses any value for a business. Again best of luck, the beauty of this comes down to that the sheer number of indulgent community members votes outweighs the opinion of the few.
We actually respect your take on this and appreciate it, critical feedback is necessary for the ecosystem as a whole btw none taken personal at all. But yes it’s up to people to vote and realize, sometimes rules need to be standards and I don’t think the rules were designed by business people..if we gave up “trade secrets” per se before securing funds to make the project successful and meet its road map then we have betrayed our investors’ trust, we hope that you personally understand and we hope the community can deduce that their investment is run by responsible people
Dfinity will abstain, as they did and said many times now that SNS is no longer a priority (can’t find the official quotes since the forum got scrambled) so it will be up to the 15-20% active voting power owned by a few participants to decide.
Actually dfinity itself went through the same dilemma in 2020 when asked about the source code and open source and in fact our take-approach is very similar with the exception we can give community members access in less than 24h of asking…we could not find a rule that explicitly says you must give up your code for it to be voted on… https://www.reddit.com/r/dfinity/comments/ith7ag/will_dfinity_open_source_its_code_when_it_launches/ ?
Edit: yah I mean can anyone show us where this rule is mentioned? Is it enforced by the system itself for example or is it best practices?
The source code is not in a fit state for reviewing (the readme itself acknowledges the current lack of build reproducibility).
The source code is therefore not in a fit state for SNS launch. I haven’t dug any deeper than that at this stage.
We are adding to the external repo you have missing dependencies for you to be able to build as a single script plus a skill file as communicated yesterday bear in mind it was late last night, our technical team is just getting into office now