Proposal: 0xFord Debate - Resolving ICP Governance Disputes Through Structured Dialogue for a Stronger Network

Watercooler
,
1

Dear ICP Community,

I’m posting this as a concerned and active participant in the ICP ecosystem, with a deep belief in its potential as a truly decentralized, secure, and innovative blockchain platform. As someone who has followed the ongoing discussions in threads like the “Voting Neuron Grants – Season 2” ( Voting Neuron Grants – Season 2 ), I’ve observed how productive debates have sometimes devolved into heated exchanges, personal accusations, and unresolved tensions. These disputes, while stemming from genuine passion for the network’s success, risk fragmenting our community and hindering progress toward our shared goals.

This post is not about taking sides or assigning blame—it’s about fostering resolution. The purpose here is to propose a structured, civil mechanism to address the core issues at hand: the “0xFord Debate.” By engaging in this Oxford-style debate, we can bring clarity to disagreements, allow evidence-based arguments to shine, and ultimately put these topics to rest. This will enable us to refocus our collective energy on building and innovating on the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP), aligning with its foundational patents (e.g., EP3744065B1 for threshold relay consensus and US12058201B2 for secure distributed ledgers—full list in the attached agreement).

What the Proposal Is: The 0xFord Debate

The 0xFord Debate is a virtual, moderated series of Oxford-style debates designed to resolve key disputes through structured, evidence-based discourse. The goal is transparency, mutual understanding, and a commitment to prioritize the network’s interests over individual ones. Here’s the overview:

  • Motions: Four neutral premises derived directly from the forum discussions, capturing the main points of contention:

    1. DFINITY’s voting practices in Voting Neuron Grant (VNG) elections undermine the decentralization of the NNS governance process. (Derived from concerns about selective adopting/abstaining overriding community votes.)
    2. The SNS launch mechanism is inherently flawed and enables fraudulent practices, necessitating immediate structural reforms. (Derived from investigations into self-funding and spam transactions in projects like FomoWELL and ICPEx.)
    3. Node provider onboarding and management on the ICP network are insufficiently decentralized and vulnerable to exploitation. (Derived from allegations of fake providers, clustering failures, and reward concentration.)
    4. Voting Neuron Grants promote centralization and self-interest rather than genuine participation in ICP governance. (Derived from claims that grants act as “bribes” leading to top-down control.)

  • Format: Each motion will be debated separately in a 1-2 hour virtual session (e.g., via OpenChat, Zoom, or livestream on X/YouTube). Sides (Pro: in favor of the motion; Con: against) will be assigned based on participants’ stated positions. Structure:

    • Opening statements (3 min each side): State your stance, core pains, and desired outcomes.
    • Main arguments: Pro presents 2-3 key points with evidence (5 min total); Con rebuts (3 min per point); Pro counters (2 min per rebuttal).
    • Closing statements (3 min each side): Summarize and explain implications for ICP.
    • Evidence must be undeniable (e.g., dashboard links, patent references, forum posts—no unsubstantiated claims).

  • Moderator/Organizer: Dexter, as a neutral party, to enforce rules, time limits, and civility.

  • Voting: After each debate, Known Neurons (e.g., CO.DELTA, CodeGov, Synapse, Aviate Labs, ICP Hub Poland) vote publicly (e.g., via forum poll or OpenChat) on which side “won” (simple majority). Outcomes are non-binding but commit participants to accept and cease debating the topic.

  • Date and Medium: To be finalized based on participant availability—please suggest dates in your response (e.g., via a shared calendar like Doodle or Google Calendar). Proposed start: Mid-September 2025, to allow preparation.

Participation is voluntary, but by engaging, we demonstrate our commitment to the network. To formalize this, I’ve attached a detailed Agreement Document (modeled after a professional dispute resolution contract) that outlines definitions (e.g., “Decentralization” as distributed control to prevent power concentration, per ICP patents), commitments, and accountability. Signing (via forum affirmation or electronic signature) means you agree to participate in good faith and abide by outcomes.

Core Arguments, Themes, and Points of Disagreement

From analyzing the “Voting Neuron Grants – Season 2” thread (209+ posts, evolving from grant applications to SNS fraud exposures) and related discussions, here are the synthesized key elements:

  • Core Themes:

    • Governance Bias in VNG: Debates on whether DFINITY’s selective voting (adopting some proposals, abstaining others) overrides community will and favors “insiders.”
    • SNS Integrity and Fraud: Investigations revealing potential self-funding, spam transactions, and linked wallets in launches like Yuku AI, FomoWELL, and ICPEx, leading to real outcomes like Neuron Fund pauses and refunds.
    • Node Provider Centralization: Concerns over fake/onboarded providers, inadequate KYC/clustering, and small groups capturing rewards, undermining decentralization.
    • Grants as Incentives vs. Bribes: Whether VNG rewards genuine expertise or entrench self-interest and centralization.
    • Broader Sentiment: Calls for transparency, reforms, and regional diversity vs. defenses of current processes as fair and effective.

  • Points of Disagreement:

    • Bias vs. Rules: Critics argue DFINITY engineers outcomes (e.g., favoring CodeGov over CO.DELTA); defenders say it’s per guidelines to avoid concentration.
    • Fraud Extent: Accusers see systemic flaws in SNS (e.g., honeypots for manipulation); respondents admit errors but emphasize contributions and reforms.
    • Centralization Impact: Some claim nodes/grants worsen power imbalances; others highlight improvements like node transfers.
    • Self-Interest: Debates on whether grants/SNS prioritize enrichment over network health.

Key Players and Their Current Positions

Based on public statements in the thread, here’s a neutral summary of involved parties’ positions (please confirm or correct in your response):

  • CO.DELTA Team (Lorimer, Donna Powell, Malith Hatananchchige): Position: Anti-bias/centralization; argue DFINITY’s voting overrides community (e.g., CodeGov favored despite lower initial support); emphasize independent reviews, tooling for decentralization, and node integrity. Accuse: Misinformation from defenders. Desire: Fairer elections and KYC reforms.

  • CodeGov/Synapse Team (wpb/Wenzel, timk11): Position: Pro-current system; defend grants as rewards for consensus-based work and decentralization gains (e.g., enforcing node transfers); argue rules prevent concentration. Accuse: Critics of lies/misinfo (e.g., on neuron control). Desire: Focus on contributions, not conspiracies.

  • borovan (Adam): Position: Anti-“swamp” of corruption; accuses nodes, grants, and SNS of enabling leeches/scams (e.g., asymmetry favoring insiders). Desire: Radical reforms, tokenomics fixes.

  • ysyms: Position: Anti-grants as bribes; argues elections are top-down, worsening centralization. Desire: End “bribing” for true decentralization.

  • 4eku (Investigator): Position: Neutral exposer; provides evidence of SNS fraud (e.g., linked wallets in Yuku/FomoWELL/ICPEx). Desire: Accountability and reforms.

  • WebTreeSoftwareSolut: Position: Anti-fraud networks; links projects like Cecil DAO/Yuku/DEF to “playbook” exploitation. Desire: Transparency on partnerships/funding.

  • Tiger (Former Yuku AI Founder): Position: Admits wallet mixing errors; apologizes, resigns, and explains contributions (e.g., events, project support). Desire: Continue building without affecting teams.

  • FomoWELL Team: Position: Admits naive acceptance of aid; offers refunds, burns tokens, halts treasury; updates on progress (e.g., AI Agent, Base chain). Desire: Rebuild trust through delivery.

  • ICPEx Team: Position: Blames oversteps by advisor; introduces new partner (Peter from Mora), open-sources code, commits to roadmap. Desire: Supervised development without treasury use.

  • cyberowl: Position: Pro-rules; argues against concentration claims (e.g., CO.DELTA as one neuron). Desire: Distributed reviewers.

  • Mico: Position: Defends CodeGov; accuses critics of lies. Desire: Transparency on new partners (e.g., ICPEx).

  • krzysztofzelazko (ICP Hub Poland): Position: Pro-inclusivity; focuses on skills/diversity over intentions. Desire: Trustless environment.

  • zire (DFINITY Asia): Position: Defends contributors like Tiger; calls for high standards. Desire: Amicable resolutions.

  • Other Neutrals/Supporters (e.g., FriedCryptoEgg, Zensh, Bing, Jayyang): Emphasize past contributions and ending debates for progress.

If your position is accurately represented, please affirm below. If not, provide corrections—we want this to be fair.

Call to Action: Your Response

To move forward:

  • Confirm Position: Reply if I’ve captured your stance correctly.
  • Sign the Agreement: If yes, affirm by posting “/s/ [Your Name/Handle]” below (or via electronic means). This commits you to participate and abide.
  • If Not Signing: Provide a detailed explanation why (e.g., specific concerns). Note: Declining implies prioritizing personal interests over the network’s collective good, as per the agreement’s emphasis on Network Interests first.
  • Availability: Suggest dates/times you’re available (e.g., “Available Sept 15-20, evenings UTC”).
  • Civility Pledge: In this thread and the debate, agree to be respectful—no incivility, slurs, or bad-faith attacks. Violations (e.g., flagged posts) may lead to disqualification by moderator vote, excluding your input from counts/resolutions. We are all intellectuals with a common goal: a thriving ICP. Clash with ideas, not insults. This applies only to the forum—external posts are your prerogative, but let’s keep this space sacred for progress.

Attached: [Full 0xFord Agreement Document]

0xFord Debate Agreement

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 0XFORD DEBATE AND COMMITMENT TO ICP PRINCIPLES

Date: August 28, 2025

Preamble

WHEREAS, the Internet Computer Protocol (“ICP”) is a decentralized blockchain network designed to provide secure, scalable, and autonomous computing as evidenced by the patents held by the DFINITY Foundation, including but not limited to those listed in Exhibit A hereto;

WHEREAS, disputes have arisen within the ICP community regarding governance practices, including but not limited to the allocation of Voting Neuron Grants (“VNG”), the decentralization of node providers, the integrity of Service Nervous System (“SNS”) launches, and allegations of bias, corruption, and self-interest, as documented in the forum discussions referenced in Exhibit B hereto;

WHEREAS, the Parties (as defined below) recognize that unresolved disputes undermine the core principles of decentralization, transparency, and network-first governance embedded in ICP’s architecture;

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to resolve these disputes through a structured Oxford-style debate (the “0xFord Debate”) to achieve clarity, foster collaboration, and advance the ICP network’s growth, safety, and decentralization;

WHEREAS, the Parties voluntarily enter into this Agreement to participate in the 0xFord Debate, abide by its outcomes, and commit to upholding ICP’s foundational principles, with any violations subject to accountability mechanisms determined by the collective of Known Neurons;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

Article 1: Definitions

For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

1.1 Decentralization: The principle whereby control, decision-making, and resources in the ICP network are distributed across independent participants to prevent concentration of power, as exemplified in ICP patents such as EP3744065B1 (Threshold Relay for Efficient and Verifiable Blockchain Consensus) and US12058201B2 (Secure Consensus Mechanism for Distributed Ledger Technology). This includes, without limitation, avoidance of single-entity dominance in governance, node operations, or resource allocation, ensuring no entity or group can unilaterally compromise network security, integrity, or fairness.

1.2 Known Neurons: Established and publicly recognized neurons in the ICP Network Nervous System (“NNS”) with a history of active participation in governance, including but not limited to CO.DELTA, CodeGov, Synapse, Aviate Labs, ICP Hub Poland, and others identified in the forum thread at Voting Neuron Grants – Season 2 . A complete list shall be maintained and updated via NNS proposal if disputes arise.

1.3 Network Interests: The paramount objectives of enhancing the ICP network’s security, scalability, autonomy, and adoption, prioritizing collective benefits over individual or group enrichment. This aligns with ICP’s patented innovations, such as KR20190113761A (System and Method for Secure and Efficient Blockchain Consensus) and US20240305477A1 (Decentralized Identity and Verification Systems), ensuring actions promote long-term ecosystem health.

1.4 0xFord Debate: The structured Oxford-style debate series proposed herein, consisting of debates on specified Motions (as defined in Article 3), moderated by Dexter, and resolved via votes by Known Neurons.

1.5 Parties: The individuals and entities signing this Agreement, including but not limited to representatives from CO.DELTA (e.g., Lorimer), CodeGov/Synapse (e.g., wpb), borovan, ysyms, 4eku, WebTreeSoftwareSolut, Tiger, fomowell, ICPEx, cyberowl, Mico, krzysztofzelazko, zire (DFINITY), and any other participants in the disputes referenced in Exhibit B.

1.6 Violation: Any action by a Party that contravenes the commitments in Article 4, including but not limited to prioritizing self-interest over Network Interests, engaging in non-transparent practices, or reviving resolved disputes in forum discussions.

1.7 Punishment: Sanctions determined collectively by Known Neurons, which may include, without limitation, neuron staking reductions, exclusion from future grants, public censure, or mandatory contributions to ecosystem development funds, enforced voluntarily by the violating Party.

Article 2: Recitals and Incorporation of Exhibits

2.1 The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference and form an integral part of this Agreement.

2.2 Exhibit A: ICP Patents. The following patents embody the core principles of ICP and are incorporated herein. All Parties commit to actions consistent with these innovations:

2.3 Exhibit B: References to Disputes and Arguments. The following sources document the disputes and are incorporated herein. Motions in Article 3 are derived therefrom:

  • Main Forum Thread: Voting Neuron Grants – Season 2 (e.g., Lorimer’s post on DFINITY bias at post #236; borovan’s accusations of corruption at post #242; 4eku’s SNS investigation at post #150 onward).
  • SNS Fraud Details: Derived from 4eku’s analysis (e.g., linked wallets in FomoWELL/ICPEx at Voting Neuron Grants – Season 2 - #150 by EnzoPlayer0ne); Tiger’s apology at post #180.
  • Node Centralization: borovan’s claims on fake providers at post #240; wpb’s defenses at post #245.
  • Grant Bias: ysyms on bribes at post #238; cyberowl on rules at post #237.

Article 3: The 0xFord Debate

3.1 The Parties agree to participate voluntarily in the 0xFord Debate on the following Motions, derived as noted in Exhibit B:

  • Motion 1: DFINITY’s voting practices in VNG elections undermine Decentralization (derived from Lorimer/borovan arguments on bias).
  • Motion 2: The SNS mechanism enables fraud and requires reforms (derived from 4eku investigation and ysyms critiques).
  • Motion 3: Node onboarding is vulnerable to exploitation (derived from borovan/Lorimer on clustering).
  • Motion 4: VNG promotes self-interest over participation (derived from ysyms/borovan on bribes).

3.2 Format: As outlined in the proposal (e.g., openings, arguments, rebuttals, closings; evidence-based with links to Exhibit B).

3.3 Outcomes: Non-binding but commit Parties to accept results and cease related forum discussions. Votes by Known Neurons determine winners.

Article 4: Commitments

4.1 Each Party commits to transparent, fair, and unbiased contributions to ICP’s growth, safety, and Decentralization, always prioritizing Network Interests over personal enrichment.

4.2 Parties agree to put debated topics to rest post-debate, refraining from reviving them in forums or elsewhere.

Article 5: Dispute Resolution and Accountability

5.1 Resolution of Arguments: Any post-debate disputes (e.g., interpretation of outcomes) shall be resolved via NNS proposal voted on by Known Neurons. Evidence must reference this Agreement and Exhibits.

5.2 Violations: Allegations of Violation shall be raised via forum post or NNS proposal. Known Neurons shall investigate and vote (simple majority) on findings. If affirmed, Punishment shall be determined by Known Neurons (e.g., via proposal) and executed voluntarily by the violator.

5.3 Governing Principles: This Agreement is governed by ICP’s decentralized ethos; no external jurisdiction. Parties waive claims of ambiguity.

5.4 Severability: If any provision is invalid, the remainder remains in effect.

Article 6: Execution

6.1 This Agreement is effective upon signature by the Parties, voluntarily and with full understanding.

6.2 Signatures may be electronic (e.g., forum post affirmation) and counterparts are valid.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

[Signature Lines for Parties: e.g., /s/ Lorimer (CO.DELTA); /s/ wpb (CodeGov); etc.]

Let’s turn conflict into collaboration. Who’s in?

Best regards,
Dexter

Sources and References

This proposal and analysis are derived from the following sources:

All motions, positions, and themes were synthesized from the forum thread content fetched and analyzed as of August 28, 2025.

2

Asked Grok to do a TL;DR ran out of tokens.

1 Like
3

Im sorry but this llm generated analysis which seems to have taken single posts people made months ago do not accurately reflect peoples positions or what is important right now.

i dont believe any of the things the ai said about me i even issued public apologies to some of those people because i made assumptions that were in error.

i imagine things it said about other people are equally innaccurate.

no i dont agree to restricting my thoughts to whatever format this llm is proposing. Nor do i appreciate it reducing my thoughts to a soundbite.

4

I have asked to clarify your postion, if not accurate

The “Ai” just synthesis my thoughts here is my notepad + have all this written out in my editor

If you like to resolve the issue, propose a solution.

IMG_6598.HEIC
IMG_6598.HEIC3024×4032 2.69 MB

IMG_6599.HEIC
IMG_6599.HEIC3024×4032 2.74 MB

5

Hi ZoLee,

Thanks for the reply and the light-hearted noteappreciate the humor! Let’s keep things civil and productive here, as per the thread’s pledge: we’re all aiming for constructive dialogue to strengthen ICP, so focusing on ideas over jabs helps everyone.

If you’re running into token limits, check the sources section in the post—it includes the full Grok conversation log where this proposal was built: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_1dbda074-b81b-48a2-adec-daa763ba5ef7. You can open it directly to see the step-by-step creation (and it’s freely available with a Google account via Grok-4).

For context: The full proposal post is about ~5,338 tokens (rough estimate using a simple tokenizer on the content far below Grok-4’s 256,000-token context window, per xAI docs and recent confirmations). If you hit limits, it might be from an older model or prompt setup Grok-4 handles way more without issue.

TL;DR of the Proposal: This is a call for an Oxford-style debate (“0xFord Debate”) to resolve ICP governance disputes (e.g., VNG bias, SNS fraud, node centralization) through structured, evidence-based arguments. 4 key motions, moderated by Dexter, voted by Known Neurons. Goal: Clarity, end forum fights, and refocus on network decentralization/growth. Voluntary participation via signing an agreement suggest dates if interested!

Looking forward to your thoughts or if you’d like to join in.

Best,
bitel911

6

Kidding aside I do appreciate your time taken and efforts put in (and yes I am also aware of your previous statements regarding your use of AI and I do not mind, but that aside I do not trust your judgement may that be autistic or not following you engagement on X regarding different issues tied to IC, yes there are ppl that do notice and keep track without interacting) with that said wish you all the best and keep doing what you think is right. This as as civil as I can be, hope you don’t take it to heart. Peace :wink:

1 Like
7

I am in :100: % :check_box_with_check:

1 Like
8

@WebTreeSoftwareSolut additionally, in the grok conversation you can find the file “contextForum.md” Which is 6000 Lines of forum posts

Feel free to State your stance and if you are willing to particiapte or propose a better solution to end the unproductiveback and forth

image
image1207×798 53.6 KB

image
image851×587 42.8 KB

9

I do not need to be the Moderator or Judge, This is the format I am proposing, I can stay out of this I do not care to be the person moderating or judging, Im not taking it personal just trying to find a solution

10

Did not meant it to be about you, as I said it is much appreciated approach , the issue is that we tried this before and there is no way to have a civil debate with Alex and Adam.

1 Like
11

“no way to have a civil debate with Alex and Adam.”

Let me worry about that part, if all parties will be there I will make sure its a civil debate

You confirm your postion, agreement and civility pledge?

Thanks for supporting, I just am very tierd of seeing this on the forum

12

YES, I do ! If it helps I am also open to a live face to face debate, if that would help move things forward.

13

Some people just aren’t debaters and prefer to talk with memes and insanity. You don’t get to choose the communiation method do you?

14

Adam, You know I respect you we have some things in common, do you agree to hold a civil debate on those motions?

Would appricate it as you are one of the core parties involved if you could get your assurance to finally seek a solution, If you don’t want to participate i can understand and won’t bug you about it

Cheers,

16

IMG_1202
IMG_12021290×1993 212 KB

Adam admitting his evidence needs to be better should be enough to understand he is just acting out and trying to force people to leave for no reason.

17

Please, I ask anyone here as stated above to either interact and state your postion, afirm it, lets save the arguments for the debate, give Adam the space to answer, I asked for anyone interacting here to be respectfull to each other regardless of the feeling you may hold.

Fight in discord or somehwere else, but not in this thread

18

Mico, I ask you to affirm the postion, if you are willing to engage in a civil debate, not to state your points in this thread.

Could you comply with this request?

19

Your request is based on Adam wanting to just attack people.

What is the point in debating on half baked information being used to support his rants?

We should push people to post facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions based in reality and not conspiracy.

20

My request is based on 6000 lines of post across the forums, I have not taken any side, and tried to propose the solution i think i the most productive,

”We should push people to post facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions based in reality and not conspiracy.”

If you like to present this as your arguments in the debate then you are free to do so, this post is to get everyone on board into a format and end this in a intlectual manner, please do not start arguing here, i asked everyone to state and affirm their postion, acknowledged participation, if you do not tell us why exactly not, and do it in a civil manner.

That is all