Proposal to create an SNS DAO for SNEED

[ckMood]

I recognize that everyone has the ability to vote. I know I do not own the SNS. What I’m saying here could be of no consequence because it’s ultimately up to what the community wants. I just want people to think about what it is they’re voting in to have an SNS. The SNS infrastructure has not matured yet. The SNS infrastructure is not a perfect hedge against potential malintent. There are people here who don’t think SNEED is a memecoin when it says it is. How diligently are people actually examining things or do they just want to see their favorite thing on the front page?

Dominic laid out what people should be looking for in an SNS proposal:

@dominicwilliams

1. Technology. What is already running? Is it something we can see is compelling, because we can actually try it out!? Is this something with legs, which we would be proud to have running in a fully decentralized way as part of the Internet Computer blockchain in the mode of a protocol?
2. Real users. Does the project already have some reasonable number of users that helps prove its value? There are many projects on the Internet Computer that have significant numbers of users to choose from. Users provide proof that a project is viable and ready for the next stage.
3. Tokenomics. Projects that are fully decentralized require sustainable tokenomics. This is what will drive their micro-economies, bringing in new users, and helping them grow over the long-term. It is non-trivial to create working tokenomics. At the least, the project should be able to explain clearly the tokenomics that could be created using SNS governance tokens.
4. Team. Who are the engineers/entrepreneurs behind the project? What are their capabilities? Where can we actually see what they have built, because that’s the only real way of knowing they are capable of. Generally speaking, in the years I have been an entrepreneur, I have seen team after team that is convinced that if they were provided funding they could build something great, then falling on their face when they received funding. Building is hard. People give up or start arguing. They flame out. For these reasons, in my view, projects and teams should show they can build, and that they have the relentless determination required. People can build in their spare time. Single-minded developers and entrepreneurs get shit done one way or another, often without any funding at all, running on empty, and fueled with pure determination. These are the projects that become winning bets when afforded funding because it just helps them accelerate what is already working. This is something we need to require if we want to create a thriving decentralized economy that lights the way for the rest of crypto and Web3. Riskier bets should be the domain of grants, seed funding and VC (or VC-SNS) funding.

I respect SNEED wanting to be a community builder. It could be a form of the VC-SNS that Dominic mentions and perhaps that could work however SNEED has not presented itself as something to be taken seriously and so I don’t believe it is unreasonable to be skeptical of such a proposal. I think SNEED checks out in terms of “users” and tokenomics but the team and tech are absent. The way Dominic talks about future SNS projects he talks about them as the way in which I described of a project with a tangible product and visible team behind it. I’m simply voicing my opinion.

@nolyoi

How is the value or utility relevant at all unless funds are being asked for from the community fund?

Value and Utility are always important especially with a concept like the SNS. If there are projects that offer no value then this harms the credibility of the SNS concept and dilutes its meaning.

Also I’m not sure I’m understanding your entire comment so if you could elaborate that’d be helpful.

@Robert_Hon

Do these so-called high-value projects have any trading volume?

You are correct the trading volume for SNEED is a bit higher although SONIC 24h Vol is not accounted for a lot of the coins so it’s not as much of a discrepancy as ICPCins shows but it is there. I can’t argue there.