Why you should approve this proposal:
Now that the CF fund is about to become reality, NNS voting is monetarily incentivized more than ever. We need to decentralize the known neurons to ensure only quality projects get accepted.
How I will vote?
Centralized ----------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ Decentralized
Trust--------------------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ Trustless
Not crypto ------------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ Crypto
Ponzieconomics ----- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ Real profit
Closed source -------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░ Open source
Rust --------------------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░ Motoko
Marketing--------------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░░░ Development
Manual------------------ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░ Automated
Big tech ---------------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░ Indie
Dependant Dapps — ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░ Sovereign Dapps
Not NNS wallets ----- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ Internet Identity
Changing protocol— ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░ Hacking
B2B --------------------- ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░ B2C
I will reject CF projects if they:
- are not fully decentralized
- don’t have a content moderation system
- have Ponzi economics
- have deceitful marketing
Description: Anvil provides web3 tools and services
Who am I?
3v Interactive Inc. Filed KYB @ Dfinity. Grant recipient for hackathon-winning project GitHub - infu/nftanvil
I’m not sure I understand the following stances:
I understand preferring one language over another on a personal level, but why would you vote for one over another at the NNS level?
Ok, so you dislike AWS/GCP… how does this affect your vote?
- Ponzieconomics vs. Real Profit
Can you give an example of how this will affect your vote?
- Changing Protocol vs. Hacking
Same, please give an example.
Also, can you give an example of a few of your previous votes that you feel most demonstrate the spirit of your neuron?
Links to your vote on the specific proposal, plus your reasoning behind the vote (i.e. Twitter/blog) would be helpful for myself and the rest of the community to see.
Personally I do not think any project that has not been in the market already for some time and has demonstrated product market fit should be allowed on the SNS or the CF.
What are your thoughts on pre-launch projects? In my opinion it makes no sense at all for these apps to launch through SNS
If there is a proposal to abandon the development of Motoko, I will vote no - keep it.
You could try to solve a problem by making a few tech giants or by splitting the solution into many smaller ones controlled by small companies
A lot of crypto projects so far were made to draw good price charts while working like a fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. These projects are short-term even if they bring NNS profit, they will be damaging the ecosystem in the long run. Neurons locking ICP for 8 years will only lose value from such. Real profit - you create real dapps, like coinmarketcap_com or a forum, a social network, dex, something innovative, etc, and you provide a good end-user experience, generate profit from selling memberships, products, etc.
I am observing recently that some prefer to change the rules/protocols instead of trying to figure out a solution using them. I am more inclined to keep the rules intact unless there is enormous benefit in changing them.
For the last CF proposal - I voted yes.
I like the CF the way it’s set now. 8year locked neurons have the most voting power when deciding which projects get accepted. Standalone funds won’t be interested in long-term projects and will be more inclined towards Ponzi economics. Standalone investment vehicles will also require another token, which someone can easily manipulate.
ICP token serving multiple purposes is a good idea and brings more security. If you only had it securing a wallet holding assets. At some point, it could become profitable for someone to buy governance tokens to steal from wallets.
Pre-launch projects won’t be decentralized and automated. They will be just asking for funding while only giving promises. I think the process should be - Hackathon → Grant → Seed (optional) → (you have fully working web3 project now) → CF
We can start with smaller - simpler - cheaper, but finished projects, to see how things will work out.
Let’s say we create a web3 component like Disqus first and give them to NNS CF.
We create 10 of these components and with them, we can build bigger dapps a lot faster.
Great to see another proposal for a named neuron!
@infu could you clarify on which topics you would vote? Would you vote on governance only and follow the foundation on everything else (like eg ICPMN does)?
Yes, exactly. I am voting only on governance manually. Following Dfinity on the other topics.
Explain this process explicitly to a new user with the technical know how of a 5-12 year old (limited understanding of functionality). I think this process in written form somewhere (if it isn’t already, would be great to have out there as a solid “sign” like hey new and confused users look at this option. When they get that far. @infu
I would write it, but I am uncertain if this is the idea behind NNS CF, so I wont be onboarding new users with it just yet.