I agree the state it is in right now was probably not the goal of the original members. But it’s possible the state will change in the future. Looking at it from a governance standpoint, in my opinion, it’s no different than Dfinity having a voting majority on certain proposals so they can make sure the ICP network changes they submit get passed.
Sounds to me like @borovan is going to retain the 51% control so the game creator has the ultimate say over the creative course of the game, but will give out rewards and allow the community to provide feedback on certain aspects through voting? It may not have been the original intention, but the majority of people with original stake in SNS1 didn’t care what happened with it anyway, evidenced by the sale.
I personally don’t think it will be the last if you’re thinking very long term. The more SNSs that launch, there are bound to be a few that start to die on the vine and have more than 50% of their tokens listed on an exchange. As you’ve proven, all it takes is someone with enough capital to buy it up. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, just part of the ebb and flow of business. The more the technology behind the SNS advances, the more use cases we’ll see. I think it’s exciting.
If DFINITY had actively tried to prevent this from happening, wouldn’t that have been a less desirable outcome? We stated from the very beginning, that this is the ICP community’s DAO, and you should do whatever you want with it. The community willingly sold their SNS-1 tokens to @borovan. What should have DFINITY done? DFINITY didn’t aid, nor prevent what willing participants of the DAO did.
Isn’t this a GOOD thing for a presentation on the ICP ecosystem? If it was me, I would say something along the lines of, the original idea of the SNS1 was launched with (insert lots of advanced features). Over time, the original members decided they wanted to exit the DAO and put their stake on the market for sale for various reason. Instead of leaving the SNS1 stagnant, a gaming company with enough capital purchased over 50% of the stake, and is going to use the SNS1 as part of their infrastructure. While this was not the original intent, the ICP and SNS technology allowed the market to regulate itself and can open doors for companies and individuals to use it in ways we haven’t even thought of yet. The information on the dashboard is in a state of flux due to the recent sale and will hopefully change to updated the current state of Draggin Karma Points.
I’m just throwing it out there that (as a new person to the ecosystem) I look at it as a GOOD thing and am happy it is all working as it should.
I think many people are accepting the outcome of this development. We can observe it. Then improve the SNS system.
Look at this thing objectively, no need to boycott it or sing its praises. It does reveal a lot of problems, and this is where SNS needs to be improved.
Agreed. If anything, future teams planning to propose their dapp to be assigned to an SNS will design their initial tokenomics and token distribution very carefully, so a takeover is harder to execute. Needless to say, we welcome any suggestions for improving the design of SNS itself.
One very practical dilemma is this:
An SNS that is 100% controlled by one person who can modify any code and rules in the dapp. This would break the basic idea of the blockchain and would be a failure of the SNS if this became the typical use case of the SNS.
Instead, there is room for technical improvements to limit the SNS to control everything.
Correction: The wasm of SNS1 Ledger is provided by the SNS system, and the controller of Dapp can only choose to upgrade. He can modify Dapp’s canisters code (not including Ledger)
As @lara explained above. The SNS canisters themselves can only install code approved by NNS. The dapp canisters of course are controlled by SNS votes. So there are still things that this “one person” cannot do.
The Applications is governed by SNS1
The Token are partially managed by NNS, so the SNS1 ledger is still decentralised,the attacker can not directly modify the ledger. New tokens could be minted through voting rewards still?
Is there anything incorrect about the above？
Is there any other ways to change the Token Economics？
Thank you very much! @PaulLiu@lara
The application is still controlled by SNS-1, but SNS-1 cannot create transactions to transfer tokens from people’s wallets, only from the treasury.
It does however have the power to mint tokens or change tokenomics in any way compatible with the SNS. This included adding voting rewards, changing minimum and maximum locking period, or changing the TX fee.
SNS1 may have temporarily become a CAO (centralized autonomous organization), but of course SNS1 may become a DAO again
One of the practical meanings of DAO is’ can not ‘, not’ don’t want ’
I use icpcoins.com more than any other Dapp in the ecosystem, it is my understanding SNS-1 Dao was given control of it.
C’mon who isn’t guilty of sneaking a peak at the latest ICP ecosystem token prices from the best Dex aggregator on the protocol! I hit-up the site 5-times a day on a bad day!?!
Please put careful consideration into what happens to that project. Kind regards and cheers on the conquest.
Correction: The wasm of SNS1 Ledger is provided by the SNS system, and the controller of Dapp can only choose to upgrade. This concern can be eliminated.
the SNS1 token’s controller is zxeu2-7aaaa-aaaaq-aaafa-cai, which is SNS1’s SNS Root canister.
One thing to clarify: I am not against SNS1 being controlled. I am advocating that SNS make improvements to deal with this situation, which is reasonable and benign and beneficial to all.
You’re wrong. The core canister upgrades are dictated by the NNS/SNS-W since it was launched on the SNS subnet and not the standard application subnet. Governance, ledger, root, swap, etc. Only the dapp canisters can be modified.
Someone from dfinity has cleared this up.
From the docs:
More concretely, this means that the NNS community approved the original SNS canisters’ code and continuously approves new improved SNS versions.
If it wasnt launched on the SNS subnet, then you would be correct.
Before doing an SNS, teams work with Dfinity and many others to make sure to prevent 51% attacks. The tokenomics are reviewed rigorously. The Neuron fund also helps with this. In spite these measures, it is very unlikely, but possible in time that a person could buy all of the tokens.
Total IMO: The first year of ICP was a lot about NFT. The second year a lot about BTC integration. Maybe games are the place to focus now: we will only know with time!
During Supernova the two finalists were Cubetopia and Spnr. In many ways ‘deep tech’ (ZKP) / and mass adoption tech (games).
“What is the killer dApp that is going to bring ICP mainstream!!?” - Many ICPeople.
I don’t think it’s unlikely at all over a long enough time period. As the tech gets easier to understand and more projects launch, it’s guaranteed that some of them will start to fail. Once more people start selling their stake, they’ll be ripe for the picking for anyone with enough capital to buy up over 50%. IMO.
I agree with you 100% here. It could become a normal thing like how businesses purchase other businesses now. Just depends if a person or business finds it valuable enough to do so, like in this case for Dragginz.
I think it’s just shocking for people to see here because there’s either some emotional attachment to SNS1 getting in the way or a philosophical difference/misunderstanding. There were no rules broken here. No one has particularly been harmed that I know of.
I know myself and some others expected something like this to happen with SNS1 at some point. Played out a little bit differently in my head but same idea.
but same idea.