Fair point. I’m sorry for distracting and I’ll remove my posts
Yes, they absolutely can do something about it. The issue that Adam has is that a high percentage of the WTN voting power on the Vote for NNS Proposals was following CodeGov. This has been known and discussed for months. CodeGov created a vote relay app because I realized that these proposals were going to be a duplicate of the NNS from the beginning and didn’t want to do double work myself. We designed it so 1) anyone could use the CodeGov app to create their own relay pair or 2) fork the repo and control their own canister to create their own relay pair. I even offered to create vote relay pairs using CodeGov WTN neurons pairs with a variety of NNS known neurons. Nobody found it important enough to take advantage of any of these options.
CodeGov didn’t ask everyone to follow us and we certainly didn’t make it the only option available. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Whatever though, I stand behind the votes that the CodeGov neuron cast. They were all based on educated and intentional decisions.
It was bound to happen that someone would complain. To Alex’s credit, he drew attention to the situation many times (for a while, he single handedly triggered the vote on Subnet Management since the CodeGov neuron was following him exclusively) and I supported his concerns while continuing to outline the different options that were available. This went on for months.
The votes that have been cast by WTN neuron owners are 100% according to the decisions that each individual neuron owner has made. Perhaps the right thing to do is for folks to start taking their voting power seriously enough to actually lift a finger and set up their following according to what they think is in their own best interest using the tools that are already available. We don’t need some complicated new voting mechanism when we don’t even have people taking personal responsibility for how their own voting power is triggered. The tools exist to make sure you vote your own way. Perhaps when the actual voting power controlled by WaterNeuron is significant it would make more sense to divide the voting power into smaller batches. Today, however, it doesn’t solve the real problem. The real problem is lack of people taking personal responsibility for their own vote.
1 Like
Nope, I actually think this change makes sense. It was part of the solutions considered when we designed to voting mechanism.
I also agree with what Mico is saying. I understand that sometimes you were drunk but it’s not an excuse to publicly talk like this. Having your opinion is fine, everybody has one, but sharing it publicly while being freely insulting towards WTN, Enzo and I is not. Especially knowing your influence.
7 Likes
Who’s the ultimate beneficial owner of your node machines, Leo? I know 
2 Likes
Oh that changes things, i take it all back.
2 Likes
Theoretically there are 3 factors.
- WaterNeuron devs hold voting power that shapes project future.
- Bad actor gain voting power, throw overboard old devs and drain everything.
- Legit businessman gain voting power to take over project and still keep it safe and profitable.
So you actually should not rig voting system, just put profit into increasing stake.
The swamp is deeper than we all thought
1 Like
Dude I’ll reply to this when you discover paragraphs.
1 Like
You’re a bit slow as usual…
1 Like
The voting relay you mention and the voting UX has nothing to do with the highlighted issue this proposal is attempting to solve.
If people are following WTN neuron, it’s even worse than I originally thought. Splitting neurons and not allowing that, makes the solution even better.
WTN last I checked was about liquid staking and improving DeFi, not about aquiring massive amounts of voting power on the cheap. A proper solution that attempts to do liquid staking will try to NOT mess with the NNS voting power balance as much as possible.
Hey @infu. I did a little more research to get exact numbers. It appears that WaterNeuron directly controls 0.8% total voting power in the NNS and it triggers about 1% total voting power in the NNS (about 0.2% from followers).
Are you suggesting that WaterNeuron should own more than 1 NNS known neuron? How would NNS voters decide which one to follow? Again, the amount of NNS total voting power that the WaterNeuron known neuron controls directly is only 0.8% VP today. Do you want to split that into smaller chunks? Why?
The WaterNeuron known neuron triggers about 1% total voting power in the NNS today. Hence, there isn’t a lot of additional voting power following WaterNeuron other than what WaterNeuron controls directly. In the event that this grows in the future, it should be noted that splitting the WaterNeuron voting power into smaller chunks cannot affect the followers of WaterNeuron at all.
Recently it appeared that WaterNeuron was triggering about 2% total voting power in the NNS, but that could have been influenced by some large neurons following both WaterNeuron and CodeGov or it could be that some larger neurons recently decided to stop following WaterNeuron. I didn’t realize that had changed slightly. Anyway, the data in this post is now corrected.
(1.7M VP 6mo + 1.4M VP 8yr) / 385.3M TVP = 0.8% VP
1 Like
The way staking and apy works on icp requires some forum of vp being acquired. From what I know there is no way for keeping people from following the wtn neurons either.
To look at liquid staking it’s to look at the protocol level reward mechanisms and using that to provide a service. The by product is acquiring voting power of those who don’t wish to lock in for 6 months, remain liquid or those who don’t care about governance and want apy.
The solution is for those whom care deeply about governance to acquire wtn to have a say in those people’s vp.
Assuming the dangerous attack vector is the real concern here, a simple thing that could be done to improve matters while only having to change a few lines of code (and a Service Nervous System parameter) would be to make the supermajority threshold for adopting an NNS proposal 67%, rather than 50% (essentially treating the mirrored NNS proposal topic as a critical WTN topic).
Given that this canister would not be impervious to a governance attack (if 67% of VP colluded), don’t we get the same level of security by just actioning the simpler suggestion above?
Thank you for raising this discussion @infu 
, I think these are the right sorts of discussions to be having about a project that’s as important to the IC as WaterNeuron. Governance responsibilities need to be taken extremely seriously. I think we should lean towards whichever approach best protects the IC (but without introducing undue incidental complexity, if it can be avoided while providing the same level of protection).
1 Like
If you apply this supermajority idea to any of those proposals that Adam wanted WaterNeuron to pass, then more of them would have been rejected, not less.
Why are you taking a productive conversation and re-personalizing it over and over? There is a concrete improvement discussed and consensus is being reached. I know its hard to stay focused but the topic is WTN and network security, not appeasing Adam.
4 Likes
Where exactly is the lack of network security for WTN? Nobody can even clearly define what problem is being solved. I see no improvement. It’s a solution in search of a problem. At the end of the day the WTN team is going to do what they are going to do anyway, so it’s probably a wasted discussion if they’ve already made up their minds.
Do you not see that you answered your own question?
In any case, I disagree. If the DAO wants something to happen (not just the dev team) it will happen. There are numerous active members of the WaterNeuron DAO that are perfectly capable of making this change themself (the supermajority one), and it’ll pass if the DAO as a whole agree.
I think it’s sensible for all WTN proposals that affect the IC to be considered critical proposals (given that some of those proposals are indeed critical by the NNS’ standards).
Unfortunately, the provided service doesn’t seem to be very accurate. I recommend snsGeek as a more reliable and precise alternative.
Hey!
What is the source of the data?
Could you please share how this a lot was calculated?
What is the source of the data?
Thanks.
How so? Comparing snsGeek - Track every SNS on Internet Computer and WTN Dashboard it looks like the data is the same.
1 Like