Hey,
I was looking at the yaml file and saw that the developer neurons have a really low lockup;
dissolve_delay: 9 months
vesting_period: 3 months
Why is that? In my opinion this reflects dedication towards the success and growth of the project.
That in combination with 46% initial voting power right after launch doesn’t look that great and with a few followers it would be easy to go over 51%.
Could you please explain, it might be for some other reason I don’t know about
@rem.codes of course.
The Personal DAO token differs from other SNS tokens in that it’s not a governance token for a codebase that is controlled by the SNS. Instead, it is a payment token that is to be used to facilitate the exchange of computational resources within the ecosystem that emerges from the network of Personal DAOs that are deployed to the internet computer.
Note: As each Personal DAO is already within the full custody of its respective community. creating an SNS to control the code base would be redundant and unnecessary.
One of the factors I have to consider is having enough of the token liquid in order to provide liquidity to exchanges so that the ecosystem isn’t stalled due to a lack of liquidity on DEXs
It’s hard for me to anticipate how much activity there will be within the ecosystem in the mid term (1-3 years), so i opted to go with a vesting period that would allow me to respond to the scenario in which much activity generates lots of demand for the token, thereby requiring more liquidity on exchanges. i arrived at a vesting period and dissolve delay that would account for the possibility that this liquidity is needed one year from now.
Note: all neurons created for swap participants are set to unlock before any developer neurons are accessible. This is done specifically to address potential concerns from swap participants who share concerns similar to yours.
I am open to suggestions though. What do you believe would be a good configuration that takes both factors into account? (the concern you raised as well as the concern I raised)
Hey thanks for the response! I did have a few other questions / remarks;
Based on the above, and I don’t want to come over as disrespectful, but is the SNS then actually the way to go for this project? Right now the only canister controlled by the SNS is the frontend canister. In my opinion the whole core of the SNS is for participants to govern the project in decision making and direction, wouldn’t an LBP or some other form of distribution a better fit for PD if its only about a token?
I understand the “personal control” factor in the sense, but how about the canister that provides / stores the wasms for the API canister, or deploy new PD’s, or maybe a PD’s registry, why is that not SNS controlled?
As for the liquidity and low locking, an other way you can do it is;
Multiple neurons per member with different dissolve delay / lockup, ex;
And about taking such a large portion from the start;
It can be avoided by adding the portion you want to use for liquidity to the treasury and move it by proposal which looks a lot better for potential investors and remove the “trust” assumption towards the development team.
In the end it’s all about trust, verifiability and transparency.
I certainly agree that verifiability and transparency are both critical. I would say the goal is to eliminate the need for trust and instead offer agency to each community.
I address verifiability and transparency by open sourcing the code, and affording each DAO the ability to verify all wasm modules offered in upgrades (this feature is currently on the task list).
I address agency by affording each community with the opportunity to accept or reject upgrades via consensus. That is: when upgrades are created, each DAO must submit a proposal and come to a consensus over whether or not they wish to implement those upgrades.
If a particular community does not like the upgrades being offered to them, they’re free to reject those upgrades and contract a freelance developer to build out the product in the direction they see fit. The DAOs are equipped with the functionality needed for allowing them to allocate necessary resources to compensate contractors and give them the access needed for deploying changes and revoke that access after completion of the task.
This ecosystem is meant to be built in such a way that affords each community the flexibility that they’ll need in order to confront the economic challenges that are unique to their circumstances.
One of the drawbacks of having a single codebase that is shared between members of a decentralized ecosystem is that everyone, no matter their geographical, geopolitical or economic landscapes, must conform to the same feature sets. A feature that is perfectly legal in one country may be outlawed in another. An example of this is lending with positive interest rates. This is perfectly legal in most places except for Islamic nations, where collecting interest on a loan violates Islamic law and may be punishable with prison sentences.
Your opinion of the SNS conforms to the traditional way the SNS has been leveraged.
I can appreciate your vision for the SNS, and I share your ethos that communities should be able to govern the decision making process of a project. (This is why I created Personal DAOs to permit their respective communities the opportunity to govern and update their DAOs in directions that are specific to their needs- in adherence to the ethos you’ve expressed. )
I believe the SNS offers an arena for experimentation for various models of decentralized economy.
Thus far, the SNSs that have been launched conform to a single model of decentralized economy: namely, a single enterprise that is governed by a single SNS.
I’m introducing a new model of decentralized economy that I believe will contribute to the robustness of the ICP ecosystem. Rather than leveraging the SNS to govern a single sovereign enterprise (as has been the case with all previous SNSs) , I’m leveraging the SNS to govern the token that will be used to facilitate the development of an entire ecosystem of sovereign enterprises (Personal DAOs).
I’m confident Personal DAO will be an example for other developers looking to offer sovereign apps to end-users. I can foresee this model being implemented by devs who wish to sell and update sovereign data storage apps, wallet apps, chat apps, etc…
While i do believe that precedent is important, i also think it’s very important not allow the ecosystem to be bogged down by following precedent at the expense of innovation. This happens all too often in the tradFi realm and it leads to obsoletion if left unchecked.
I’m offering an SNS launch that experiments with and extends upon decentralized economy.
No.
There is currently a lack of liquidity throughout the ICP ecosystem. Very little VC activity, very little price action of the ICP token, and very few people use LBP.
The SNS platform is by far the best platform for raising funds within the ecosystem. Using any other platform would yield little to no capital, which is needed in order to sustain development of the product.
Beyond the lack of capital that other platforms offer (and more importantly) is security. SNS DAO’s are hosted on the SNS subnet, which is sustained by 34 nodes, rather than the 13 nodes that standard subnets have. Deploying a token via an LBP would create a token that is hosted on a standard 13 node subnet.
A token housed on a 13 node subnet makes me anxious to think about if I’m being candid. As the token value increases, so too does the incentive for the node providers to collude and manipulate the token’s canister to their benefit.
I can imagine this token reaching a $1Billion market cap at some point. All it takes is 9 node providers for $1Billion worth of value to be stolen, leaving each of the 9 node providers with ill-gotten gains in excess of $100,000,000.
To this day, I refuse to invest in $BOB for this exact reason.
The SNS subnet is much more decentralized, making it much more secure. It would be irresponsible of me to launch the token on a less secure subnet when the SNS subnet is available.
Note: Communities achieve full sovereignty of their DAOs right out of the gate, whether this infrastructure is under the control of the SNS DAO or not. As I’ve stated, each Personal DAO is fully autonomous and does not rely on this infrastructure for sustainability.
This infrastructure is part of a service that is offered by a private company. Personal DAOs deployed to the internet computer have the full freedom to contract any private company they wish when seeking to maintenance and/or update their DAOs. I’ve created the Personal DAOs to make it easy for DAO communities to reach consensus on who they wish to contract, how they assign canister access to said contractor, how they revoke canister access to said contractor and how they compensate said contractor. All of the tooling needed for Personal DAO communities to explore alternative options for development services are provided right out of the box for each and every DAO community.
In theory, if you (@rem.codes ) disapprove of the updates being offered by our dev team, you have all of the tools needed to offer a competing service to any of the Personal DAOs deployed to the internet computer:
Although it’s not necessary for affording sovereignty to each Personal DAO community, I have considered placing this infrastructure under the control of the SNS DAO (and I’m still considering it), but at this time, i will not be doing so. The reason is that it introduces the possibility of some legal liabilities that could jeopardize the viability of the project.
Our compliance team consists of two legal experts, one is actively pursuing regulatory compliance in the EU. The other is actively defending against regulatory persecution in the US.
Placing the aforementioned infrastructure under the control of the SNS DAO removes our team’s ability to ensure that recommended measures are taken to avoid the proliferation of this technology into jurisdictions sanctioned by the US and EU.
In such a case, this would curtail our efforts towards regulatory compliance before being able to achieve them.
For this reason, it is imperative that we be able to practice discretion in how these DAOs are introduced to the marketplace.
Note: Accessibility to this technology is a priority. We want people of all nations to be able to access this technology, which is again why the codebase is open sourced and the DAOs are very easy to deploy via the CLI with very little technical knowledge required. Any developer or community can permissionlessly pull the code, deploy their DAO and plug right into the ecosystem.
As a doxxed team, building a product that challenges the viability of big tech, and big finance, and regularly interacts with institutions, we do need to maintain a reasonable level of plausible deniability in the event that bad actors leverage these DAOs for nefarious purposes. And we’ll do that by ensuring that the people who are able to purchase the DAOs via our no-code solution are from countries that aren’t subject to sanctions by the US or EU.
We intend to use positive working examples of these DAOs to bolster our efforts for greater regulatory approval.
Our current approach is to onboard universities throughout the US who are looking to leverage these DAOs as a way to monetize the research produced by their faculty. The possibility for sovereign AI agents that can be queried for a fee has been attractive to several universities throughout three distinct regions of the US.
These efforts stand to be undermined by a single organization on the terrorist list gaining access to these DAOs via a no-code solution built by our team.
in the short term (< 6 months) I plan to introduce the no-code DAO deployment solution for people from countries that are not subject sanctions by the US or EU.
But as for where we are with the current phase of development, it would be premature (and unnecessary for achieving sovereignty) to have this infrastructure be controlled by the SNS DAO. There’s still testing and debugging to do before it’s ready to go live.
As a courtesy, I’ve been deploying DAOs for members of the ICP community upon request and a video call meeting.
Before the investors’ final neurons are unlocked (within 6 months of the launch) the process will be automated and the no-code DAO deployment solution will be offered but it may or may not be decentralized depending on a few factors.
In either case, holders of the token will be able to exercise the token’s utility to purchase their own DAOs and computational resources, which is the purpose of introducing the token.
I like this idea. I’ll make some edits to the .yaml to reflect changes in accordance to this.
I’ll take this into consideration as I reconfigure the .yaml file
Thanks for explaining, seems like we just have different perceptions of what an SNS should be. But nonetheless I wish you all the best and hope the SNS succeeds
Is there any token allocation for OG pass holders? If not, what is the purpose of the NFT (as to join the OG DAO did not and does not require it)?
Yes. I believe a token allocation is fair for holders of the OG NFT. For now, it’s too soon to say what the amount of the token allocation will be. This would be something that would be better discussed during community deliberation on how we’ll use the funds from the treasury. Its better that we have an idea of the total resources available within the treasury before deciding.
I personally believe the funds in the treasury should be used with maximum efficiency in mind. My experience funding the development of this project has taught me to skew conservative about how resources are distributed, unexpected challenges are never too distant. Having a proper cushion affords us longevity.
Originally, the DAOs were going to have a feature that would allow the communities to select an NFT canister that acted as the entry key for new users looking to enter a DAO.
In practice, it made onboarding more difficult, since it required people to have already purchased and hold the NFT in a different wallet in order to be able to send the NFT to the DAO for entry.
Instead, entry gating is achieved by allowing new users to deposit ICP rather than paying with an NFT. This allows me to integrate an on-ramp solution to help get users onboarded. Crypto On-ramps flow similarly to e-commerce checkout Windows. Whereas, NFT marketplaces are barrier for web2 users.
what fxxking is it ? rug pull? 
Of course not. Personal DAO has years of development completed, and an actual product that anyone can test by navigating to the link provided in the original post where it says “try the product”.
In addition to having a working product, Personal DAO has an active community of users. There are currently 18 Personal DAOs deployed to the internet computer, each with its own unique founder.
The OG Personal DAO has 62 DAO members alone.
Voted to reject proposal 135584.
This looks like a very good project, but the concerns are that only the frontend is being handed to the SNS and that even this is not truly open source.
As can be seen in JessAYrn/Landing-Page/canister_ids.json (which is not the repo given in the linked forum post), the one canister listed in the proposal corresponds to the landing page, which as seen in the dfx.json ultimately points to this index.html. From developer tools on the landing page itself, we can see <script defer="defer" src="index.js"></script> in the html code. The current version of the repo does not contain this line or even a corresponding index.js file. I searched through the full history of the index.html and did not see this line in any of the commits. It appears from this that the code used in the deployment of this canister was never committed to the repo. Note that I’m not a regular user of the browser tools, so please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted the information here.
Another concern that the developers will control 45% of the voting power, which fits within the technical requirement for a decentralised dapp but still seems a bit on the high side given that the Neurons’ Fund is being used.
Again, this seems like a very promising project that already has some good uptake. In parts of this forum thread @Jesse has articulated a need to retain control of various aspects of the project and the reasoning seems fair enough, so perhaps the SNS model is just not the right fit for this project.
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 & Neurons’ 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 decentralisation 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.
Quick clarification that I think is relevant. CodeGov has recently started participating independently in voting on Governance and SNS & Neuron’s Fund proposal topics instead of just following another known neuron.
Most of the current Followees that have been selected are CodeGov team members, but not everyone. The overall CodeGov vote will be based on the consensus of our Followees who are listed on our codegov.org website. Tim is one of the CodeGov team members who is very actively involved in our reviews of NNS technical proposals.
Since this is a volunteer role, it is not a requirement that everyone post a review for every proposal. I was impressed with Tim’s attention to detail on the technical side of his review, so I asked if he would be willing to post it here. I will go ahead and post my own review as presented to the CodeGov and the Synapse voting members, but it is not as technical as what Tim has provided. I don’t expect others to also post a review, but perhaps they will.
I hope in the future that CodeGov will be able to provide more in depth reviews of SNS proposals, especially looking at the technical details and offering an objective evaluation of the proposals against the SNS preparation checklist and/or other commonly accepted criteria. However, this is a lot of work. With a few occasional exceptions, nobody in the community performs this kind of work on a regular basis except DFINITY. Of course, DFINITY has employees who are paid to scrutinize the details. I’d like to see the NNS incentivize other people and organizations to perform independent reviews as well at some point in the future and I hope that CodeGov can be one of those organizations. Until then, we will perform this role on a volunteer basis and will not be able to dedicate resources to more consistent technical reviews.
Topic: SNS & Neuron’s Fund
Proposal: 135584
Vote: ADOPT
Title: NNS Proposal to create an SNS named ‘Personal DAO’
Comments: I have voted to Adopt proposal 135584 to launch an SNS for Personal DAO. Jesse has been building this app for several years now and has remained vocal about his intention to start this SNS for a while now. I see no reason it shouldn’t be allowed to start. I reviewed his forum post back in Nov 2024 when he first posted about it and don’t recall any major concerns, but I didn’t review the yaml or the details in this proposal. I am familiar with Jesse and trust his ability to launch an SNS that be believes best fits his vision for the SNS.
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.
Hey @timk11. I appreciate you sharing your concerns regarding the structure of the project.
I must push back on the idea that the project is not truly open source. The code base of the Personal DAO product that end users use to store their funds, conduct P2P lending, govern alongside their respective communities, etc… is indeed fully open sourced. It is the code base that is linked in the Original Post that you were directed to.
This project offers turnkey DAOs to various communities who will presumably edit, upgrade and delineate their DAOs to suit the needs of their community. In this context, placing a Personal DAO canister under the control of the SNS is not necessary in order to achieve decentralization as each DAO is already decentralized out of the box and each community is free to update their DAOs however they see fit by altering the codebase linked in the original post. Personal DAOs already include the features needed in order to enable their communities to update their DAOs in a democratic fashion.
I’m confident that the SNS model is the appropriate model for this project. Allow me to shed light on why I’m of this opinion. Please bear with me, as I provide context:
In the traditional finance world there are banks of all shapes and sizes, and then there is a central bank that serves as the entity that sets the monetary policy and is the lender of last resort for the various private banks that are within the jurisdiction of the central bank.
My goal for personal DAO is to create a DeFi ecosystem within the IC that is even more robust than the TradFi ecosystems of countries like the UK, the US, etc… I intend to accomplish this by preserving the functional elements of TradFi ecosystems, while removing the elements that aren’t so functional.
The primary functional elements of TradFi ecosystems that I’m aiming to preserve are:
The primary non-functional elements of TradFi ecosystems that I’m aiming to eliminate are:
With this project, the Personal DAOs fulfill the role of the independent, distinguishable, flexible financial institutions. Personal DAOs are to the ICP ecosystem what community banks are to the TradFi ecosystem. The difference is that Personal DAOs are governed by the communities that operate them and they cost less than $100 to establish rather than costing millions of dollars to establish as is the case with TradFi community Banks.
the SNS DAO fulfills the role of the central bank which sets the monetary policy that the Personal DAO DeFi ecosystem is subject to. The SNS DAO is to the ICP ecosystem what the central bank is to TradFi ecosystems. The difference is that the SNS DAO is a decentralized central bank- governed by a DAO, rather than being governed by an unelected group of people as is the case with TradFi central banks.
The repo originally given is the repo of the Personal DAO code base. This is the codebase that Personal DAO communities will reference if/when they choose to customize their DAOs to their particular needs.
I have updated the OP to include the link to the landing page repository.
