man no one is going to copy cat your project on #ICP its just for accountabillity purposes, get a license that limits commercial use or get one that protects certain features similar to that of dfinity but if you are going sns you have to open source definately. I personally had such fears but pulled them aside, i know u look at the years and time invested and u feel like open sourcing is like cheating u but its not like that dear
Again we are afraid it’s not up to one individual, once the SNS clears our minimum and proves it’s a reliable mechanism we will do so, this position will not change and no single person per se in the team can change it. As we understood so far, there is no hard rule on this, it’s best practice and we believe open sourcing parts of what is hundreds of thousands of lines will be sufficient for the time being.
can #dfinity give us a view on this? everyone is pointing in the same direction, can you open source. these are the people who vote my dear.
Some other things to consider mainly but not limited to businesses looking at SNS that one may find either a risk or a challenge or a surprise later down the road.
As you already know the SNS subnet has 34 nodes. Gen 1 nodes are near end of life with remaining contracts expiring December and following months. At some point there was a decision to swap out all nodes from system subnets for Gen 2 ones in order to be able to enable TEE (SEV). That was put on hold for now, but in the near future there could be a new SNS subnet created and migrate all current 300 canisters with the 20GB state to a smaller subnet.
As we all know things break and keep in mind SNS is no longer a priority for Dfinity so if things break what will that do to your business, who will get blamed for lack of maintenance ? Are your canisters future proof, can they handle upcoming features that are not yet tested ?
Just some extra things to consider.
If a 34 node subnet migration gets screwed up then I don’t know what will happen to the 13 node app subnets so we would be screwed anyway along with everyone else haha..but seriously tho we do trust dfinity has very competent teams backed by some serious reviewers, we trust the process because honestly if critical subnets fail then there is no hope for our other subnets. That being said, we are aware of hustles in upgrades which ultimately could clash with our continuous improve culture, but we are working towards streamlining this and have been since the start because we intended to decentralize. As a non custodial infra provider we can’t take user funds in cross chain pools legally, but can if done through a DAO
cant a regulated formal DAO Structure like wyoming DAO llc handle that ? if thats what you want
This does not abstract away custody, the operator access and upgradability which is solved in a creative way by the existing framework. Legal structures of decentralization also need technical structures
Good luck with the SNS, hope your project gets the approval to start the sale. In case it gets to that point and it fails to reach the minimum, would you try again later in case crypto market conditions improve?
If it fails we will most likely accept more VC funding and go straight tier one ICO, we would then also have to think of an MPC solution for upgrades and invest considerably more in decentralization infrastructure. We are doing this specifically for a tier 1 launch and listing which we expect would give considerable value-visibility to the protocol generating revenue which is already trickling.. bear in mind unlike any other project here which some have proved scams we did not even receive even shout out from the main account to help our marketing and acquisitions we are owning our GTM end to end without help that traditionally was given easily and still is from time to time
Please point me to these examples.
The more time you spend side-stepping this request increases the smell around it, in my personal opinion. I’m starting to get very bad vibes about this.
It’s entirely possible that Menese have decided they no longer wish to spend time on IC infra, but would like to see what they can get from the community before leaving.
Hey just for reference, you can find one of lead researchers giving a graduation speech, honored by the university and celebrating students graduation projects some of which @MForum funded it is literally the most recent LinkedIn post at Mercatura Forum LinkedIn…we just don’t want to make this topic about initiatives of the fund backing us..we did acknowledge their initiative helped us that’s us as researchers actually being humble I don’t understand the issue!!
I don’t understand how this is even relevant? We just open sourced a shielded ICP ledger project that would if used right bring a lot of attention to the ecosystem…why the bad faith there is nothing to actually justify it..not a single thing lol, and I’m sorry get off with what 100k ICP LOL, there are over 9 contributors you think people spend money and effort and run other blockchain nodes to bring them here to get off with 100k ICP…you should check out our liquidity pool and get feedback from our users and community
It’s actually outright harmful especially for a project like us who did spend a year building huge infra..
This post was because a dfinity upgrade that bricked our canisters and we were told dfinity does not care about feedback and dfinity corrected it that was a statement to make sure actually a response was issued to those saying the blockchain now is a dictatorship taken out of context…which dfinity later corrected btw
And we did develop our Menese 2 of 2 signing protocol to work on SEV subnets why would we keep developing tools?
The issue I’m pointing out is that you are making plenty of claims, and I don’t see any way of substantiating any of it. Give me some links!
I also don’t buy the argument for not open sourcing your solution. If you were concerned about that then you would have required me to sign an agreement before granting me access. As yet I’ve not been able to verify any build. Even if you were given the benefit of the doubt, it’s in no way appropriate to try and launch an SNS with closed source code. It’s just wrong
You can do a Google search if you are able to misquote us. The SNS carries risk not being able to deliver, hence no code until it’s able to deliver. We have put a license in the repo you have access to and we have code markers, this is not about an NDA. You can do a google search or go into LinkedIn to do DD, you are the ones making claims about us show some evidence.
I think you have stated your position on open source regardless of verification(it’s just wrong) even though we will have reproducible builds. In any case, we feel by accusing us this sorta of ends the discussion from our part. Any further reviewers are welcome the repo is licensed anyway.
We don’t feel like being baseless accused, feel free to register your No vote, we will not take personally except the person attack of us stealing apparently.. so yah we will even advertise your positions and own it.
Trust in this community is earned not given, I support this project but honour the basics, like open sourcing, being accountable.The community has been rugged including me myself by early sns projects, if you survive the first round you may not survive the second(GOD forbid). i remember we wanted to decentralized doxa and had met all these basics but still smaller issues came up and we are fixing them. Our goal was not even to raise money but decentralise and have a DAO place to allow people to have a peace of the first icp crosschain stablecoin.
This isn’t okay my fellow african brother, there projects which failed to raise but are still building, its like you want to define your own term, failure is a critical path to success. That small point of not open sourcing or simply not making your code public on github may be the only reason why the community will vote no on the first round. Doxa is in plan to get an open source license
Read through past sns’ and learn how things are done here. I had too before proposing sns, yet i was around wen dfinity launched the sns framework
Maybe we should have this in bold, so everyone who got here is aware because too many posts, we are proposing an SNS while keeping our source code closed until SNS is successful. This is our position, it goes against best practices implemented before, but we are owning this position. If anyone disagrees with our rationale please vote No.
canister for decentralization are the main backend canister signer and tx builders and our cross chain swaps and CLMM for Cloak. Thats it folks, we have decided to do it on the 21st of August whoever thinks we can execute our vision as we have to do date we would welcome your yes. Whoever is unable to vote because of our closed source posture we also welcome your No vote.
I’m not accusing you of anything, except failing to provide evidence to the contrary.
The burden of proof is on the proposer.
Don’t take it personally. This is me conducting my due diligence in a high stakes context and you should respect that. I don’t appreciate having to ask many times and not getting anywhere. This will be my final post on the matter.
u have finally given up on him @Lorimer I remember u squized us so hard over using ckUSDC as collateral, guess u will do the same,nthis time round and vote in our favour 