Below is the summary and payload information that will be submitted to the NNS for a Register Known Neuron proposal to the Yuku AI known neuron.
Proposal Title
Register Known Neuron: Yuku AI
Known Neuron ID
16673157401414569992
Known Neuron Name
Yuku AI
Who are we?
Yuku AI is a groundbreaking platform at the intersection of AI and Web3, empowering users with decentralized AI agents, immersive 3D spaces, and a dynamic marketplace for AI assets.
Why do we want to become a named neuron?
NNS determines most important matters of the internet computer.
The Yuku AI team hopes to participate in NNS voting to accelerate the decentralization of the internet computer and stimulate neurons to participate in this important activity through the power of the community.
The neuron you are registering @anywn is newly created, there is no reference to any announcement in the proposal, and this forum post was created at the moment the proposal was submitted. I have difficulty verifying the identity, which is why I am rejected it.
But all is not lost, if you fix it quickly and take action to confirm your identity, you may still be able to save the proposal from being rejected by the majority!
If you are using quill / dfx only, think there is a way too.
I suspect a private neuron will become public immediately after the nns approval, but just wanted to check the config of following, and previous history of voting (although this one is very young, and won’t have any).
Maybe the docs need to be updated with this new feature, but don’t know the commands.
If you can’t, don’t think it’s a big deal, it’s just a nice to have thing.
NNS determines most important matters of the internet computer.
The Yuku AI team hopes to participate in NNS voting to accelerate the decentralization of the internet computer and stimulate neurons to participate in this important activity through the power of the community. Please support us, thank you!
All known neurons are public, but any neuron can be made public without having to become a known neuron.
I didn’t see anything that is incorrect in that docs link you provided. It didn’t seem to say anything about needing to be a known neuron in order to be public. It was simply instructions for how to become a known neuron.
The term public neuron applies to a neuron that has made its voting history visible. Private neurons do not share voting history. A known neuron is the type where the neuron is listed in the NNS dApp as a potential Followee selection.
So why do you want to become a known neuron if you plan to follow DFINITY on the Governance and SNS topics? Why is it important for your neuron to be public?
As mentioned in the docs, the goal is for known neurons to put themselves forward as an entity that votes independently and reliably. Following DFINITY or another known neuron on the Governance and the SNS topics isn’t achieving that desired independent contributions. Please consider not following others on these topics so your presence as a known neuron will help contribute to decentralization on these topics.
Are you able to provide a case for why people should follow your neuron on these topics? What steps will you be going through to verify SNS proposals? Why have you chosen these topics, and not others? How long have you been active in the IC community?
Hi Lorimer, Thanks a lot for your question. Happy Christmas and New Year.
YUKU AI is one of the earliest projects (over 3 years) in the IC ecosystem, in addition, YUKU AI is also one of the activist SNS DAO projects, which focus on the game, metaverse, NFTs and AI. Therefore, our team has affluent technical and product know-how in the field of the NFT, game, AI in the ICP. And our team would like to participate in games, Metaverse, NFTs and AI related governance in the ICP ecosystem to enhance the diversity and decentralization of ICP NNS system. Therefore, ICP people could follow our governance for the above-mentioned topics.
We plan to conduct a series of audits and reviews of each SNS project proposal, including but not limited to the project team background, white paper content, and token economics, code, and technical review, etc. At the same time, we are also actively seeking more ways for our YUKU AI community to participate in governance and better promote the decentralization of the entire IC ecosystem.
We will focus on the topics of games, metaverse, NFTs and AI, because we have affluent technical, product, community and users experience in the IC ecosystem.
YUKU AI project and community have continuously built for over 3 years.
Homepage: https://yuku.app/
X: x.com
Thanks @YUKU. I’ve never seen a YUKU review on a proposal before, but maybe I’ve not been looking hard enough. Could you point me to an example of the reviews that you do?
YUKU AI continuously focuses on the technical, product, community, and user experience in the field of game, metaverse, NFTs and AI of IC ecosystem for over 3 years. We could contribute some experience and knowledge in these fields and at the same time we also could improve the NNS decentralization and governance in these topics.
In addition, YUKU AI is an independent SNS DAO project with a large user base, and we will put the interests of the YUKU community and the entire IC ecosystem first. We want our users to be aware of all our decisions and to participate in the governance of SNS and NNS in this way. Once YUKU AI becomes a known neuron, community users can better participate in governance, which will positively help promote decentralization.
SNS is the most advanced DAO model in web3 and an especially important part of the overall NNS governance. It is about the interests of everyone in the community, so we all have a responsibility to make it much healthier.
Previously we seldom join the governance of NNS, through we have many communication with Dfinity tech team in the NFT standard ICRC-7, and many communication with Plug team regarding DAB. With the remind of our YUKU community, we realized the importance of joining the NNS governance and decentralization. we will actively and seriously do it.
It can be useful for known neuron candidates to be an (unregistered) actively voting neuron for a while before registering a neuron. During this time, the neuron holder can get familiar with voting and start becoming an expert in a topic. They can also share their neuron ID for others to follow them. In this way, by the time that they register the neuron as a known neuron, there is already some evidence of their voting behavior that NNS participants can base their decision on
Am I correct in understanding that you have no such evidence? As @krzysztofzelazko mentioned →
I’m inclined to follow his vote on this. I’d love to see more governance particiption. This needs to happen. But I think talk is too cheap in this respect. Reviews are hard work, and it’s too easy to say you’ll do them and/or that you’re capable of doing them.
I agree YUKU AI has the potential to positively promote decentralization. I may have misinterpreted your answers to @tiago89. I thought you were saying that you would be following DFINITY for the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. Instead you may have said that you will follow DFINITY on all other topics, but vote manually on Governance and SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. Obviously it is your choice who you follow and when you vote manually. It just wasn’t obvious why you would want to be a known neuron if your only intention is to follow DFINITY. I concede that I probably misinterpreted what you said.
@Lorimer Why is this your litmus test for whether of not YUKU AI is worthy of becoming a known neuron? There has never been an expectation that known neurons will provide public reviews of Governance and SNS & Neuron’s Fund proposals in order to become a known neuron. You recently started a known neuron called D-QUORUM and didn’t make this commitment. In fact, you decided to set DFINITY as Followee for every proposal topic including Governance and SNS & Community Fund. That almost completely diminishes the decentralization value that D-QUORUM could bring to the NNS. Why hold YUKU AI to a higher standard than you held yourself?
Are you asking me why I consider there to be a need to evidence claimed voting behaviour before I vote to adopt a known neuron? I’m not sure I understand the question. Is this not what you do?
These are the topics that the proposer claims to specialise in. I already referred to the best practise guidelines about this.
You’ve taken a strange leap in reasoning somewhere. D-QUORUM stands for decentralised quorum. The idea is to have more reliable followees, not fewer. The principle idea is that I didn’t make any such decision about preferable neurons to follow in general. The NNS did this, as explained in the known neuron proposal that was adopted by the NNS. There are currently only 5 topics for which an NNS election has been held, as explained. Those elections were not about replacing DFINITY, nor that they’re doing a bad job. Those elections were about adding to the number of neurons that can be relied upon for casting an informed vote.
There’s plenty of evidence of voting behaviour, due diligence and reviews for every D-QUORUM followee. The LORIMER neuron is one such neuron that was elected by the NNS, and therefore subsequently followed by D-QUORUM.
Note that D-QUORUM was set to public well before raising the known neuron proposal, followees had long been set and discussed, and an announcement and public discussion also took place well in advance of the proposal.
I’m afraid I don’t follow this line of reasoning either. I’ll notify the other D-QUORUM co-founders in the group chat. Perhaps one of them will be able to provide you with a more satisfactory answer.
Correct, I am asking why you need to see past voting on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund proposal topics in order for you to vote to adopt this known neuron request. You have never done that before to my knowledge, but perhaps you can share some examples. I certainly do not need to see this evidence for my own personal decision because Governance and SNS & Neuron’s Fund proposal decisions are matters of opinion and every neuron in the NNS is free to formulate their opinion based on whatever they feel is relevant. I would not want to stop any known neuron from casting their own votes with their own convictions nor would I want to prevent someone from attempting to decentralize the NNS in their own way by blocking their attempt to become a known neuron.
Yuku AI did not claim to specialize in these proposal topics. Yuka AI claimed that they will vote manually on these proposal topics, which is all that is needed from any known neuron in order to contribute to decentralization. Nobody expects them or any other known neuron to write review reports or develop a specialization in these topics.
I’ll switch to the D-QUORUM thread to discuss the rest of this post simply to avoid steering this thread off topic.
I always look for evidence that the neuron can and will do what they say they will do. If you have a query about any one of my prior votes, please let me know.
You are obviously free to vote as you see fit, but I would refer you to the best practise guidelines again. There’s nothing perculiar about how I’ve voted.
@YUKU claimed that they will conduct audits for SNS proposals. Please note that this is a very technical topic. I think you have the wrong impression of what a proper review of such proposals entails (such as an audit).
Please provide a link to any known neuron proposal request where you asked to see evidence of a proposal review for a Governance or an SNS & Neuron’s Fund proposal topics before you were willing to vote to adopt their known neuron proposal request. This is new even for you. Since you don’t seem to be willing to provide that evidence, I take it to mean that you haven’t made that request in the past. You are certainly entitled to change your policies, but I would hope you are willing to admit that they have changed.
I am very well aware that the SNS proposal has a high degree of technical content. It is a topic that I have even requested funding for CodeGov so I could recruit reviewers to provide objective, in depth reviews of SNS proposals before and during the SNS launch. However, those requests were denied because at the end of the day, no matter how technical you get, the decision to vote to start a SNS decentralization swap is a matter of opinion. I believe that those opinions can be better informed if there were multiple 3rd parties who study the decentralization proposals, white papers, code, etc and offer concise and objective opinions on whether or not the dev teams have complied with the technical guidelines and how the decentralization sale fits into the overall ecosystem. However, there is no funding through grants or through NNS incentives to perform that kind of evaluation for the public good. At best, the expectation is that people and organizations will volunteer their time to perform this work, which is why it doesn’t get done and why it is not a pre-requisite for becoming a known neuron.
