!ONLY “1 ICP” IN ICX'S SNS ICP Treasury! What is the Warning!, the Reflection!, the ACTION! for us?!?!?!

Developers of any other SNS DAO can do the same. They are limited only by good intentions. But people only have themselves to blame for trusting developers and following their “dev neurons”, thus giving control to one entity. So we have nothing to complain about DFINITY. Each DAO and their members are responsible for themselves and their treasury funds.


As OpenChat Dev Team’s @hpeebles said,Canisters cannot control neurons so there is no way for an SNS to stake its own treasury funds. This is annoying. Every SNS I’ve spoken to wants to be able to do this

Since Internet Identity has been able to trade through IDGEEK, the previous statement (that Canister controlling neurons or tradeable neurons would undermine governance and more) is unconvincing, untimely, unable to meet constantly changing needs! if someone wanted to destroy governance and more, they would have all sorts of ways to achieve it.
Now prohibiting Canister controlling neurons or prohibiting trading neurons has more disadvantages than advantages( Including but not limited to 1. But now that there are lots of SNSes with lots of ICP just sitting around doing nothing the situation is a bit different. Ideally these SNSes would be able to stake. Otherwise they are missing out
2. Staking is just a more optimal way to pay for development. Specially for us with small amount of funding.

3. Small capital projects or short-term difficult to profit projects caught in a vicious circle, consuming all the treasury funds, resulting in a rugpull or a soft rugpull!
It’s more important to stay alive?!
4. Not conducive to sustainable application, development, and innovation(DEFI and more)

So When and how(may from small to large scale, and more) can Canister control neurons, or neurons can trade?! @diegop @bjoernek @Manu


Share your Poposal ideas to implement a mechanism to all existing SNS`s, to prevent this from being possible.

[Community Effort: Create Proposal - Exclude Auto-Vote Option on SNS Treasury related Proposals]

1 Like

Fwiw, I saw I was tagged, so wanted to say that I did pass along to folks at DFINITY to make sure folks read this thread (since this is outside my expertise).


Recently we proposed to the community to raise the acceptance thresholds for some proposals, treasury transfers being one of these - see the forum thread here. It’s been under development but unfortunately it’s taking longer than expected. My current estimate for creating the upgrade proposals that implement these changes is Nov 2023.

In parallel, we’ve discussed internally some other measures that we can take to make SNS DAOs more rug pull resistant. Some of these are:

  • Disabling following for treasury proposals
  • Limiting the amounts that can be withdrawn for a period of time

Our plan is to do some more investigation on the topic in the upcoming weeks, come up with more ideas, and then have a community discussion before implementing anything. I’d like to thank IC_Maximillion for starting the thread that captures ideas. I’d love to hear more ideas on the subject.

So far I’ve talked about technical solutions which are the building blocks of the SNS DAOs. However, as important as they are, they can’t solve all problems. Ultimately, the SNS DAOs are a type of social construct and as such rely on the interactions of individuals. For an SNS DAO to be healthy and successful, it should have an engaged community that is in constant contact with the DAO contributors (aka the dev team) and which applies social pressure to them.


I secodn canisters being able to stake neurons, it would allow more liquidity into the ICP ecology.


Great to hear you are already working on it, Nov 2023 is not that late.

The measures you named above will be very helpful to raise trust to investors and the community, and give them a sense of comfort.
Like CZ Binance did, when he came up with (Proof of Reserves) after the FTX crash.

With the above mentioned measure alone:

  • Disabling following for treasury proposals

E.g. if the majority mainstream users of a SNS game would hardly come through to check for voting, there still could be a orchistrated team (a hand full of voters with large ammounts of voting power) that could have a plan to drain the treasury or something in that direction.
Lets make sure they can do anything but drain the treasury.

Im sure DFINITY and the community will come up with a Double Secure Solution,
that cant be found on any other platform.

Having easy access to tokens, worth millions of dollars, laying around in the treasury, can make the most honest devs fantasize.


This is the correct answer. SNS is and never will be a magic bullet to prevent fraud and scams. It’s just a tool developers can use to raise funds and eventually decentralize a project. People are asking more from the protocol then it can ever provide.

People always need to do their due diligence and take accountability. There were plenty of red flags on BoomDAO and ICX. I will say it was a terrible look though for dfinity employees to endorse BoomDAO publicly however

Reimagine and Rebuild the ICP Customized Targeted AI-enabled Dynamic Economics, Governance, and MORE! The Economic and Governance Base determines the Superstructure! Avoiding Vicious Circle and MOREl!

1 Like

After a stagnant investigation, identical actions have been repeated by BOOM DAO - an SNS dApp endorsed by multiple DFINITY employees, and the DFINITY Foundation themselves.

Action needs to be taken - the foundation can not repeat their previous fault of indefinite intentional ignorance, as showcased in so many subjects prior.

This needs to be solved in a timely manner, otherwise you are leaving countless users vulnerable to exploitation of the faulty centralized system that is liquid democracy in isolation.

This passive “we’ll get around to it… eventually…” stance is going to leave us in a TERRA LUNA situation. And while the Foundation says it’s not a problem until we’re there - I’d like to see someone attempt to correct the TERRA LUNA event.



I’m confused what the problem is? I think it’s sounds like a bunch of people crying about nothing.
BoomDAO did exactly what they said they were going to do. I applaud them in removing ICP from the treasury neuron and staking it - I wish every SNS project would do more of the same. They also gave the BoomDAO Foundation 2-years of funds to make other strategic developments and investments in to their product. Again no problem that I can see as it’s not the DAO’s decision to decide where the funds go, it’s the leaders of BoomDAO and that was expressly made very clear well in advance of Boom’s SNS. So either people don’t read or don’t ask the right questions and therefore just gamble money(ICP) around the ecosystem.

Maybe you have a different set of expectations to what the BoomDAO project is or isn’t, but that’s not Boom’s fault, that person’s fault is Accumulating.icp’s fault.


Apparently BOOM DAO said they were going to take this action in their SNS sales proposal before hand. Do you know if that’s true?

You mean other than the fact that they extracted 80% of an SNS DAOs Treasury in a Lump Sum, executed the proposal within 3 minutes, allocated 100x funding for themselves over liquidity pools, and claim that 80k ICP is enough to “build the future of gaming” while they had to take 320k ICP for basic tooling that was already in existence?

Seems real sustainable, thank God they’ve allocated less than 1/3 of what they took to a Neuron! If you do basic math you’ll quickly realize that the Neuron won’t regain the full 320k ICP even after 8 years staked compounded.

I’m not going to entertain this ignorance further, I’m just going to state that I’m beyond concerned for the future of ICP as a blockchain if your mindset of careless-ness continues to cultivate amongst others.


It’s in their whitepaper that they were going to use 80% of funds for roughly 24 months of development. I don’t agree with how they did it, but it was in the document. Whether they pulled it all out now, or slowly drained it over 24 months doesn’t make a difference in my mind.

Also, I haven’t seen a lot of people who actually bought into the DAO complaining about what is happening with their funds. There might be some, but they don’t seem as vocal as the people complaining who didn’t even invest in it. U.S. residents were blocked from participation, so maybe that has something to do with it.


Yea if they disclosed beforehand what they were going to do then it’s case closed, they didn’t do anything wrong.

I still don’t think this is a great way to handle DAO funds, doesn’t feel sustainable long term.

1 Like