At this point we need more than just Borovan’s data. Just going off of what he shows and his own conclusions, esp. given his conspiracy theory tendencies, doesn’t cut it for me anymore. We need the other side to respond as well to have both perspectives @dfisher.
2 Likes
It’s simple Adam has no proof of anything because it’s all diffamation.
1 Like
So far 70% of Adam’s ‘conspiracy’ theories turned out to be true, the other 30% have a pending status.
4 Likes
WHY ONLY DEFEND ??
We could also vote to take ownership to their wallet or neurons to PUNISH bad actors. Reverse any previous grant they recieved.
1 Like
Well, just off the fact that the proposal is incomplete and didn’t match the original motion proposal… Can someone please explain me, why CEXes offering ICP staking to retail should result in any kind of ICP price down pressure or value extraction from the ecosystem?
Crypto is a game of attention, and without attention there will be no mass adoption. Its pretty straight forward. We can have our 8y Neurons having a big slice of VP earn useless tokens or having a smaller slice earn Tokens worth a shitton.
Not defending anyone here but some claims made here are just plain stupid in my opinion. We should rather use our energy to make the icp more attractive to people outside the ecosystem than freighten them with this kind of protectionist BS.
3 Likes
I would agree. I’m not siding with either side here but I believe we need to be careful accusing people based upon mostly circumstantial evidence. What someone might do and what they will actually do are two different things. We can guess and guess wrong. This is not “Minority Report”. Would it make sense for David to be essentially be an “Angel” investor in the IC similar to Adam and heavily invest in SNS projects like WaterNeuron as well as in infrastructure like nodes just to jeopardize his investments in it? Unless there is some damning evidence that Brian Armstrong or some other sinister higher up at Coinbase is funding this crypto terrorism and they were also possibly linked to SBF’s price manipulation from Genesis and are now trying to finish the job, this is like trying to predict the future and whether Satoshi Nakamoto is going to rug all of Bitcoin in the future with his outstanding 1.1M Bitcoins and that was his true motive from day 1, not altruism for the world… Why go to such great lengths and with such large sums of money and spend so much time doing so? But I would like to hear the other side’s defense to all these allegations as well esp. if there is some “damning” evidence here to convict them all.
I asked @wpb directly and @dfisher directly about this and here is what they responded:
April 25th, 2025
Me: Wenzel, I’d like to hear your side of Adam’s accusations that you are working for Coinbase and specifically David Fisher in order to destroy the IC so that “Base” monopolizes web3.
I invested a large sum in WaterNeuron and also helped push it on social media so I am extremely shocked at these accusations by Adam who says he has proof tying you and the “base crew” that has infiltrated DFINITY in order to further Coinbase’s plans at the expense of the ICP project.
Is any of this true?
And if not, what is Adam planning to compete with Waterneuron and essentially dilute its value (and my investment in it?)??
Wenzel: No, I don’t work for Coinbase or David Fisher. No, I’m not trying to destroy ICP or web3. I doubt David is acting in any nefarious way either. I don’t know much about Base.
I haven’t read this post by Adam yet, but will dive in this evening when I get home from work.
Me: David, I wish you and Wenzel and anyone else that Adam is slinging accusations at would please set the record straight in some new thread on the forum because these mostly false conspiracy theories and name calling like “waterneuron scammers” etc. is not helping the community at large and is driving investors away from ICP at this pivotal moment in time.
David: There are certainly arguments in favor of what you’re suggesting.
The maddening part is that I’ve found the more I’ve engaged Adam, the more I’ve gotten on his radar, and the more he becomes obsessive and irrational. So my current thinking is the best path forward is to not engage him.
I hear you though. It is frustrating.
1 Like
What if we roll BACK to direct proportional voting power and reward ? **
** Making 8 years neuron GREAT AGAIN ?
Making 6 month dissolving reward and vote comparatively small again.
This would make almost impossible for waterneuron to take over the network and give back the natural reward and responsibility to the ones that deserve it the most.
it’s simple and efficient. No downside, only positive rollback.
Reducing comparatively 8 year neuron rewards and voting power was a part of this malicious place from the first day it was invented, i don’t even need to point fingers, we all know.
People that need to have liquid stacking can still go into waterneuron.
1 Like
wait, what? is this the banfield, who many times openly said he locked for 8 years, never wanted to touch his initial stake and only take out rewards? hmmmmmmm.
Be careful Krzysztof. You are at risk of making it onto @borovan’s hit list by applying logic and reason to refute his conspiracy theories with an intellectually honest opinion that differs from his own reality.
Oh crap @krzysztofzelazko, it’s too late. Looks like you are already on the hit list. Just be careful about taking D-Quorum and co.delta down with you. I doubt he realizes who controls those known neurons yet.
Yep, you are definitely on the hit list now. Notice how the goon squad has been called. They smell fresh blood.
The truth is that everyone involved in WaterNeuron, CodeGov, Synapse, D-QUORUM and CO.DELTA has significant skin in the game and cares a great deal about the internet computer. We all strive to ensure the right people are making decisions that are in the long term best interest of the IC. None of these known neurons pencil whip our votes or abuse our voting power with conspiracy theories and rich man temper tantrums.
Oh snap! Are people actually starting to stand up to and ask questions about @borovan? That’s two in this thread alone. I’m sure you are now on the hit list @jokerswild, but don’t worry…you too will survive like those of us who have come before you.
Holy crap! That’s three! You’re done @borovan. It’s over.
In all seriousness, all Borovan did today is regurgitate the same worn out conspiracy theories that he has been promoting for a couple of months now. All accusations have been responded to with reasonable and credible explanations and it is never enough. It makes no difference what evidence is provided…his mind is made up and there is no changing it. He lacks any capacity for objective decision making that is based on evidence. Most of us are simply tired of trying to engage.
This discussion started today because of a proposal to reduced the min dissolve delay to vote from 6 months to 3 months. This is an idea that has been in discussion for years and did not just start in this forum thread. It is true that a motion proposal was made that passed by overwhelming majority many months ago and was even voted for by DFINITY. There have been recent code updates that make it logical to think that the change could be implemented. However, I’m not aware that the code is complete and ready for implementations. In fact, I would prefer that Dfinity submit the proposal that ultimately implements this change because at that point I would be confident that the code is ready. Since this proposal was not submitted by Dfinity, I have voted to reject proposal . It’s too big of a change to get it wrong.
I still applaud @krzysztofzelazko for pushing the boundaries on this proposal 136702 like he has done so many times before. This is clearly done in the true spirit of decentralization and with logic and reason.
Unfortunately, I can’t say the same goes for @borovan with his ridiculous proposal 136703. It’s just another example of how he is destroying the credibility of the IC in the eyes of the greater crypto community. The reduction in developer activity on the forum and the ICP token price performance are likely indicators of the @borovan effect we are experiencing. It’s a serious problem and more people need to be willing to talk about it publicly.
6 Likes
Well person who joined 2 weeks ago, let me give you a crash course on the development.
A lot of people locked ICP in neurons they bought at 50$ per ICP. That was the average price for the first year.
Node providers mint around 21 mil$ in ICP a year. Some people will probably argue and point out that this is nothing for the IC, but let’s look at the numbers. 10,914,450 ICP were minted and given to NPs. These will change hands a few times, but when the price goes to 50$, this means that these rewards will be worth 545,722,500$. So for the 50$ per ICP 8y neuron holder, the IC has minted half a billion $ for the price to get back to 50$, and if they want it to go to 100$, 1 billion $.
You could have the NNS buy the machines with some of the maturity, perhaps an NF-like fund, and the whole thing would have costed 70 mil $ instead, and all neurons would benefit instead of 20 NPs. The cost of hosting a node is from 100$ to 250$, and the rest (~1250$) is return on investment.
BTC offers miners next to nothing for mining investments over 4y, unless you are near a power plant. Other blockchains offer you up to 10-20% a year. The IC offers a select few around 100% ROI a year with no price risks. It could have worked if the IC distributed up to 3 nodes per entity, but that’s not what happened.
Not a lot of thinking went into this. The people benefiting from this brainless design are now offering you another hot deal. To help them make some fees from their liquid staking protocol by giving up on your 8y neuron rewards. Again, offering you not to think a lot and discard everything like it’s a conspiracy theory.
7 Likes
I still haven’t seen Waterneuron team and CodeGov rubber stampers or DFINITY address any legitimate or valid arguments. Instead there is just deflection and noise from Waterneuron “grant” recipients while they help Leo and Enzo obfuscate tokenomics changes. Honestly disgusting behaviours.. is there any particular reason why these scammers haven’t been booted from IC
4 Likes
Even on the Water Neuron Telegram group the official stance from Water Neuron is to vote no on the proposal to reduce the minimum dissolve delay.
3 Likes
Krzysztof Żelazko @krzysztofzelazko made the proposal, same proposer id [https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/134025]
4 Likes
The code changes are not complete. This is well known by many people who care about the internet computer and take our responsibility of protecting the network seriously. Those of us with significant skin in the game knew that this proposal was premature and not ready for implementation. It was also obvious that it was not submitted by DFINITY. The decision to reject was self explanatory.
1 Like
Not sure whats wrong about joining the Forum 2 weeks ago. I thought i might participate in the future - in particular due to recent discussions - so i signed up. But yeah, your respond just 100% outlines my initial post. The forum turned absolutely toxic to everyone not absolutely in line with one of the “parties” formed here. How do you think onboarding new people should work with such an toxic environment?
When you guys excaclty know where the problem is, why not just proposing to lower rewards e.g. for node providers instead of suppressing the whole ecosystem due to spreading FUD?
And to be honest, what you just pointed out is not the only thing here being unsustainable. We can also discuss, if 15%+ staking apy can be sustainable at all in the long run. The IC is quite a unicorn here compared to other serious L1s. But yeah i totally understand due to my very own interest, that this is not a popular topic because who wants to miss out his apy after locking up for 8years.
2 Likes
The neuron_minimum_dissolve_delay_to_vote_seconds parameter already exists in the governance canister. It’s not a hypothetical setting. The recent NNS frontend updates no longer hardcodes the minimum dissolve delay and uses the dynamic parameter, showing that the system is being actively updated to support the lower threshold. So saying the “code isn’t ready” may be outdated or inaccurate.