This is not unique to WaterNeuron. It’s a fact that all ballots for all SNS projects get cleared after the results of the proposal are processed. There was a recent forum topic discussing this if you want more information. @aterga has noted that several people in the community, including me, have requested that SNS ballots are stored for much longer. It seems safe to assume that you would like to add your name to the list @infu.
Synapse and CodeGov do not trigger anywhere close to enough voting power to upgrade anything in the NNS or SNS by ourselves. We are one of many voting neurons and individually we trigger voting power that is well below the threshold required. We’ll just keep doing our due diligence on the proposal topics where we are committed to voting credibly and reliably. People are welcome to follow us or not follow us, but we have no ability to accept or reject who follows us. Ideally we will remain modestly sized contributors to decentralization in a governance system where there are many other credible and reliable followee options to choose.
I still haven’t seen anyone present a credible case for this kind of claim. Would you please provide additional clarification on what myths I support or orchestrate? I’m happy to explain, but I need additional context to understand what you are talking about.
Surely you can see that it’s the same degen crowd that has always been coming after me. They haven’t succeeded before and they aren’t succeeding now. They are just making themselves look bad again and this time they are eroding credibility of @borovan in the process.
It seems to me that there have been some very good conversations about this in recent weeks. Unfortunately, they are overshadowed by all the degens that have been allowed to roam free around the forum, but for those of us who take these discussions seriously we have still been able to focus through the noise and get something out of them.
This is exactly what should happen. We can have an intellectually honest conversation about it. I don’t mind if Synapse or CodeGov voting power goes down because I’m not here to gain an oversized amount of voting power. I would rather we are one of many known neurons and will continue to offer credible and reliable Followee options to people in the community.
OK, fine. If you don’t trust CodeGov, then don’t follow CodeGov. If you don’t trust Synapse, then don’t follow Synapse. I advocate for people to vote independently with their own convictions as much as possible, or to find a known neuron that they trust if they prefer to delegate their vote. I just hope that they don’t pencil whip their votes or vote randomly.
It’s disgusting to see whales like @borovan who controls 8% total voting power in the NNS and 7% total voting power in WaterNeuron shirk his responsibility for voting in the long term best interest of the IC on every proposal. This is way more voting power than what Synapse or CodeGov controls, but what the hey, let’s worry less about @borovan and more about @wpb. Priorities???
I’ve had enough public and private conversations with you lately to realize that this is one of your central concerns. I think what you really have an issue with is liquid democracy and this is a fair concern. I wish you would start a forum thread focused on that topic.
This is a great idea. I believe that was the original plan. It was called the Internet Computer Association (ICA) and half the neurons configured at genesis and for the first year after genesis were configured to follow them by default. I never understood why ICA never became an independent organization. The token allocation that was set aside for them still exists. The non-profit status of DFINITY and tax implications of the token transfer were given as an explanation, but is seems those issues could have been worked out. Regardless, having another foundation that can grow to be a contributor to the internet computer is an excellent idea. That would definitely help advance decentralization.