This is a continuation of ‘Rivonia Holdings LLC’ transfering nodes to ‘ParaFi Technologies NS LLC’.
The node provider ID referenced in the proposals matches the corresponding details in the node provider record on the dashboard. The node allowance for this NP is 42, aligning with the agreed maximum of 42.
This is a continuation of ‘Rivonia Holdings LLC’ transfering nodes to ‘ParaFi Technologies NS LLC’.
The node provider ID referenced in the proposals matches the corresponding details in the node provider record on the dashboard. The node allowance for this NP is 42, aligning with the agreed maximum of 42.
At the very least can you point to where ParaFi has explained why their claims are at odds with that of 9 Yard’s Capital? Both parties are important participants in this node transfer arrangement.
Making false claims about NP independence will need to become a punishable offence in the near future. There are plans for slashable Node Provider neurons. For the time being, the least that the NNS can do is reject these proposals until some clarity and an explanation is provided by one or both of the relevant parties for their unmistakably fictional (or poorly framed) claims. See @timk11’s review for additional context.
You may wish to follow the CodeGov known neuron if you want a more sensible approach to NNS proposal reviews.
About CodeGov - reliable, credible, and sensible NNS governance CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron's Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
We need better standards for known neurons as well as node providers. I’ll spin up a thread and motion about it when I get some time.
It should also be noted that David Fisher (Rivonia Holdings + 9 Yards Capital + node donor for ParaFi) is Wenzel’s friend and member of Synapse. Add double standards / bias to the list. 'is a member of Synapse and deserves our support' is not an unspoken phrase.
LOL. Alex has campaign materials loaded and ready to throw down complete with ad hominem, smear tactics, and false narratives. I guess we are in election season. Nothing but conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
Alex provided many misleading and false references in his post above, which I will address below in the order that they were referenced…
“LLM generated reviews”
Alex has a history of taking cheap shots with misrepresented references. In this case, the author of the review is not on the CodeGov team. Regardless, it is unfair to present a single proposal as though it is representative of an entire team when each team member has their own work process for how they conduct their reviews and write their reports. In response to Alex’s criticism, Reggie (@BANG) provided his justification for how and why he created this review using an LLM and it led to an interesting discussion and educational opportunity. This was one of his first reviews and they have improved a lot since then because he is actively trying to learn. Personally, I hope Reggie decides to apply for the new Grants program when it rolls out later this month. I think he should be considered for the Participant Management / Node Admin topic, which is what he expressed an interest in reviewing.
“LLM generated governance debate”
I’ll let @Cris.MntYetti speak for himself, which he did quite well in this follow up post. I invite folks to read through the section he title “Unrelated” and then decide for yourself if the opinion expressed by MntYetti should be trivialized in the way that Alex is doing here.
“proposals that they don’t understand”
LOL. This is a difference of opinion. Apparently Alex equates differences of opinion to @ZackDS not understanding. Ironically, in the same thread Alex voted to reject and then later admitted to failing to account for important details after DFINITY provided him with clarifying information. DFINITY and @ZackDS both vote to adopt. Turns out Zack did understand the proposal.
“defensively abusive”
While I don’t condone the language, @ZackDS said what everyone was thinking. Alex received similar feedback from a lot of people in the WaterNeuron chat group on Telegram, which ultimately caused him to quit WaterNeuron as well.
“secretively controllable by the same man”
This is a proposal made by Alex that is full of more lies and misleading references. It was rejected by unanimous decision (1 YES, 10 NO) and ultimately became the final straw and nail in the coffin that got Alex involuntarily removed from Synapse with proposal 137031 by overwhelming majority (9 YES, 3 NO).
“false claims about transparency and decentralisation”
There is nothing false about transparency and decentralization in this link. I stand firmly behind it. It’s a trip down memory lane. CodeGov and Synapse both help advance decentralization of the NNS and they have done so long before Alex was ever involved in either and will do so in spite of Alex being involuntarily removed from both.
About CodeGov - reliable, credible, and sensible NNS governance CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron's Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org. @zolee
No ad hominem, and no theory. Just statements of fact with references. This is simply intended to contextualise your claim about:
There’s nothing cheap about pointing out LLM posts in disguise (particulalry in the context of web3 governance). The reviewer joined CodeGov and has posted many reviews on CodeGovs behalf. Also what lies are you talking about? You have a hotkey on Synapse, and stated it was priviledged information to be kept inside of Synapse (without realising it’s querably via the governance canister for known (public) neurons, as I later showed you). You suggested this was whistleblowing and used it as further fuel in your campaign to remove me from the group. Synapse is verifiably not decentralized nor transparent (there is nothing taboo about stating this fact - it can be observed via the governance canister, by design as a known neuron).
As noticed by various community members, 9YC is an investor in ParaFi, which bears the question whether this investment is sufficiently small to be below the threshold of a UBO. As per the self-declaration of ParaFi, 9YC is not listed as a UBO. The ParaFi team agreed to join the pilot program to have their self-declaration being vetted by an independent auditor.
We just kicked off the pilot with the first independent auditor yesterday. So if the ParaFi team joins the pilot now, we expect a conclusion from this audit within the next few days. It’s important to point out that the rules of the pilot program are not yet an NNS-approved policy applicable to all NPs. Because of this and based on the self-declaration, we plan to adopt the ParaFi’s NO proposals.
If there are a matter of days until the audit can be conducted, why not just wait rather than setting a precedent that should not be reproduced?
In any case, do you acknowledge the false claim made by ParaFi that they are wholly owned 100% by ParaFi? Do you also acknowledge that the results of any audit can become outdated within days of the audit having been conducted?
The precedent being set here is: rules for thee, but not for friends of me.
The entire reason the rivonia nodes are being sold was to decentralize the network.
Rather than having a public sale, a backroom deal was made between the rivonia UBO and another llc in which he holds an equity share via 9yards. What that equity shares, no one knows because it was not a public offering.
Parafi llc is split into multiple llcs parafi technologies is one of them im sure in doing this they will have a way to get around this independent auditory compliance, but we see whats going on.
There is legal compliance, and then theres common sense and common knowledge. Everyone with eyes can see.
Thank you for this post @maria. I think it was important for DFINITY to comment at this time due to all the conspiracy theories floating around on this one.
Anyone with eyes can see and logically conclude that the 9YC investment in ParaFi is likely to be sufficiently small to be below the threshold of a UBO, which is why ParaFi has not listed 9YC as a UBO in their declarations and has commented multiple times in this thread that the organizations are independent. In fact, it is likely to be so sufficiently small that ParaFi is willing to claim that ParaFi Tech is 100% owned by ParaFi.
I’m looking forward to learning what the auditor has to say, which is the only entity that will be privy to the private details needed to confirm the claims made by ParaFi. Node providers have a right to privacy which needs to be preserved, so the right answer is to let the auditor do their job instead of caving to a vigilante vocal minority police force. I applaud DFINITY for sticking to the plan that was outline in proposal 136573.
On that thread sadly it seemed like you preferred a retroactive approach to preventing node clusters vs addressing the issue before nodes get onboarded.
Hopefully that doesn’t remain the case once the issues you see with parafi are addressed
Of course not. You need a plan for how something is to be implemented before you can inspect it. The plan comes before carrying out that plan. Nobody’s reached either yet.
That thread serves to explain the sort of approach I would support.
I won’t take up anymore bandwidth on this topic. Just wanted to express my hopes for the same passion and to stop this retroactive fixing once this node provider is onboarded.
When they propose their new plan (the current one is a clear cluster) we will enjoy more conversations
Just wanted to steer this back to the topic and highlight this point.
I have no doubt that parafi will satisfy the legal requirements of passing an audit, in order to prove whatever they want to prove. Parafi has many llc branches for all of their funda and ventures. They could easily restructure however they want whenever they want.
Thats not the point here. The point here is about optics. You have a UBO who was forced to offload nodes due to non compliance and instead of selling publicly he turned around and sold it to his friends in an entity he holds some equity.
This goes entirely against what we are trying to accomplish in a decentralized network and is not a precedent we should set so willingly.
Juwt my opinion.
Luckily we can vote. I hope dfinity can rethink the precedent they are setting here.
- reliable, credible, and sensible NNS governance