We’re seeking your input on a major decision: Should idGeek move towards decentralisation via SNS?
idGeek, an Internet Identity and SNS neuron marketplace, has been operating for about 18 months, allowing users to transfer and trade their Internet Identities and associated assets. The project has gained significant traction: >1300 transactions, >1000 active listings, 220,000 $ICP value of sold assets. Therefore we think it’s time to consider its next phase and become an SNS DAO.
Why SNS?
Blackholing is Not an Option
Making idGeek immutable (blackholed) isn’t feasible, as we rely on external systems like NNS and SNS. Any changes in these systems could impact our functionality, risking asset loss or service disruption. A DAO structure offers necessary adaptability, with community-driven governance to navigate changes.
Community-Led Governance
idGeek’s service - enabling transfer of locked assets - could have far-reaching impacts on the ICP ecosystem. We believe that such decisions should be guided by the broader community rather than only a small core team.
Expanding Contributor Base
Through a DAO, we can foster greater community participation and grow beyond our current scope. Developers, enthusiasts, and supporters can directly contribute to the project.
Funding Future Growth
Transitioning to an SNS DAO would not only decentralise idGeek but also raise funds for further development. This would support the addition of new features, project expansion, and ensure long-term sustainability.
Transparency and Trust
Becoming an SNS DAO would enhance transparency and create a more trustless system. With open-source code and community-driven governance, all decisions and processes would be visible to the public, ensuring that idGeek operates in a fair, secure and accountable way.
Potential Risks
We acknowledge the risk of a 51% attack if the DAO’s assets exceed the value of governance tokens. It is important to note that the assets under DAO control also include user assets, such as Internet Identities listed for sale or currently held in escrow. This risk isn’t unique to idGeek and also applies to some of the ICP ecosystem projects and the ICP itself. We believe this can be mitigated through a good DAO design and maybe some extra security layers.
Community Polls
Your feedback is crucial. Please participate in the polls and share your thoughts in the comments below. If we receive community support, we will initiate a security audit, open-source the project, and start the preparation for the SNS launch. Let’s shape the future of idGeek together.
Do you believe idGeek is beneficial to the ICP ecosystem?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you have any major concerns about idGeek’s decentralisation via SNS? (If yes, please share your comments below)
Yes
No
0voters
If we conduct a security audit, open-source the code, and publish all the necessary details, would you VOTE for idGeek’s SNS launch?
One of the top teams in the ecosystem.
I would definitely support you, if everything is good with the audit (well known auditor with traceable reputation) and the SNS-config is reasonable.
I voted yes on everything but the only concern I have is timing. Right now may not be a great time to launch an SNS. This is definitely true for utility heavy based project that don’t have a clear way of showing how investors will make a return on investment.
I like idgeek and will use it when need it. The key to attract people, including me, to participate SNS is a clear path towards token price appreciation. It’s obvious IdGeek is a huge contributor to IC ecosystem, and super valuable to its users. But for SNS participants who are investors, we need to know more about how we can make money from it. That’s the most important aspect. Thanks for all the work team! Will always support project like this
Thanks to everyone who participated in the polls and discussion so far. If you haven’t yet, please jump in - your input is still welcome.
Stay tuned for updates in the coming posts. We’ll be unveiling more info about tokenomics, airdrop mechanics, and other details regarding the potential SNS launch.
Thanks @GeekFactory for your open and candid approach to exploring the potential for an SNS launch.
SNSs imply a level of approval by the NNS community, yet the NNS is clearly in favour of preventing NNS neuron transfers. II transfers are also not well supported (hence the niche for IDGeek). II transfers have also been frowned upon (for the same reason that NNS neurons are designed to be non-transferable).
Assuming that the NNS would support IDGeek as an SNS, what would this say about NNS neuron transferability? If NNS neuron transferability restrictions were ever lifted by the NNS, what point would there be to IDGeek?
In any case, I’m not clear that there’s a long term future for a product like IDGeek. Staking directly on the NNS is gradually becoming old hat. Better solutions have emerged (such a liquid staking with @WaterNeuron ), and others will no doubt continue to emerge in the future.
idGeek aims to be a versatile marketplace. If ICP neurons ever become transferable, they would need a dedicated marketplace, and idGeek could fill that role.
Regarding liquid staking, we totally agree it will take a significant share from native staking, but we also believe native staking will still have its niche. Plus, a substantial number of neurons are already staked in the NNS, and due to life circumstances, some users may eventually consider selling their stake. Additionally, SNS neurons are transferable by default; while some projects may choose to restrict this, others will likely keep them transferable.
Lastly, we envision idGeek expanding beyond neurons. There’s growing interest from projects seeking to add various assets to the platform, which opens up exciting potential for diverse use cases.
Thanks @GeekFactory, fair points. I should add a postive note that, although I’m not a fan of II/neuron transfers, I do like that IDGeek enforces an escrow period
Hi IDGeek, would you be able to comment on the negative effectives that a service such as IDGeek has the potential of bringing to the ecosystem (now, and in the future)? Are you mindful of the potential risks? Have you thought about ways of mitigating those risks to align more closely with the NNS status-quo regarding transferable VP?