SNS is a great product. It allows developers to do three things altogether: fundraising, issuing tokens and launching a DAO.
It really simplifies the tedious work for the three mandates. However, it still has some room to improve.
it makes no difference to participate in the sale on day 1 or the last day. so people would wait and see, which results in a bad equilibrium.
no price support mechanism. only a few projects ended up with higher prices than the fundraising price.
please comment below other drawbacks you think worth sharing
I’ve lost value on each SNS launchpad I’ve participated in. Now if I see a project I’m interested in, I will wait till after launch to reevaluate and buy.
This is an interesting observation. Given that participants get their contribution refunded to them if the SNS doesn’t meet its funding target, what benefit would there be to waiting and seeing (what would people be waiting to see)?
The current SNS sale for WaterNeuron is an interesting case, as there’ll be 3 consecutive SNS swaps (Kiwi, Papaya, and Watermelon), where the earlier ones are likely to have a higher pay off due to the number of tokens distributed.
The sale is currently slow going, but I personally hope people will wake up and recognise the opportunity this represents. I even wonder if DFINITY will be planning on particpating (@ld-dfn1 ?). Liquid staking is going to become a big thing on IC regardless, but WaterNeuron’s approach seems special in that it still facilitates responsible governance decentralisation (through the sale and distribution of WTN tokens). In fact, it almost feels like WaterNeuron needs to succeed to avoid alternative solutions (such as StakeGeek) damaging the state of IC governance (by hoarding voting power or relinquishing control to individuals that are no longer tied to the outcome of their vote because their stake is liquid).
only a few projects ended up with higher prices than the fundraising price
I think this just comes down to picking the right projects, doesn’t it? For example FuelDAO had a majority YES vote until DFINITY mentioned they will abstain (even though others had already highlighted all of the same issues identified by DFINITY). It seems like most people just aren’t typically great at picking out the good projects amongst the not-so-good projects by themselves, until a recognised and trusted entity steps in and casts their opinion.
I think you raise some good points, I’m just throwing some current examples into the mix for context and to stimulate discussion.
I laugh when people complain about how most people follow DFINITY and that this makes ICP governance “centralized”. I was seriously hoping DFINITY would vote no and got scared when they decided to abstain because early on the simple majority were actually voting to adopt a project that clearly has a lot wrong with it. I just thought it was ridiculous simple majority was yes before it was no.
The tally for Synapse voting members is 3 YES, 7 NO, and 1 not voted yet. All but two votes were already cast before DFINITY posted that they would abstain. Hence, DFINITY’s post didn’t affect the tally swing. It just takes longer for known neurons that have a large number of voting members to cast all their votes.
It’s worth recognizing that in the future the same thing will happen with WaterNeuron since the final vote on a proposal will not be cast until the last hour before the vote is ended. ICDevs also has an always vote NO policy on SNS projects for legal reasons and their vote is cast automatically within the last 6 hours or so of the end of the voting period.
To counter your point, Stakegeek is indeed excellent, just like stETH. If stETH were not transferable, there wouldn’t be such a hot trend of re-staking. The DeFi market needs xICP.
DeFi on IC needs liquid staking (that doesn’t mean it needs xICP specifically). I also think you’re looking at this from just the DeFi angle, but you need to consider the governance angle to see the complete picture.
by waiting, ppl get more info on whether the project is going to hit the min or the max fundraising target, which affects the valuation.
the current sns setup does not give early investors extra benefits so most ppl would wait. if most people wait till the last moment, the progress bar looks bad and makes ppl wonder why others do not invest, is it a scam.
Liquid staking is dangerous IF not implemented with care and attention as to how the governance side of things is handled. StakeGeek have explicitly not done this. Instead they’re diverting every participants staked ICP voting power to their own neuron and voting how they see fit (you could even reframe this as buying votes). They claim this to be a temporary arrangement, but they have no plan for how to fix this that doesn’t introduce other problems.
WaterNeuron, on the other hand, has clearly been designed from the get go to solve both the governance problem and the liquidity problem (the former is caused by solving the liquidity problem and needs addressing by any responsible solution). Robust governance is pivotal to the long-term health and future of IC.
I came across a paper co-authored by Vitalik Buterin on Interactive Coin Offerings that introduces some innovative techniques which might help address some issues. The paper suggests methods like dynamic pricing and personal caps that could make the participation in sales more equitable and possibly prevent the last-minute rush caused by the current uniform pricing model.
It could be really beneficial to consider some of these ideas to improve how SNS handles token sales, especially to encourage earlier and more evenly distributed participation.
the max icp one can invest does not make sense. one can create multiple accounts. it just adds more complexity to investors
how to deal with projects that are dying or already being abandoned? proportionally distribute icp in the treasury to all token holders? find a new team to take over, add all icp to the liquidity pool? confiscation? guidance on how to deal with such projects needs to be discussed at least