I voted yes, out of principle, as I have done with all other Known Neurons, but we need to be transparent in the fact that this site clearly doesn’t work.
My concern is that we end up in another “my husband is dead, how do I access NNS” situation, while the “Motoko News” Known Neuron is now cemented into the NNS.
As others have mentioned;
I don’t see the alignment between dissolving, and the claims made in the proposal;
Wait, can Dfinity legally allow him to use the word Motoko here? I think this is just an attempt to leverage one of the main ICP brands for self-promotion.
I’m not in favor of giving any special “status” to a neuron just because it’s registered as known. I’m not defending anyone here, but if you personally think that “everyone knows this user because of their ‘criminal past’ 
” - then ironically, that sounds like exactly the kind of person whose neuron fits the definition of a known neuron.
That’s the point of this registry: to list neurons belonging to people who are publicly known and active in the ecosystem, so that the community can make an informed decision about who they want to follow, and why. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but you should have the wide choice. Then, every six months, based on your own standards and values, you can confirm (or change) your followees and adjust as you see fit.
I think this is a very good point. How far should we allow brand appropriation to go? In many contexts ‘News’ is also a protected term requiring various commitments such as impartiality (at least here in the UK for televised content).
I think the NNS needs to establish a firmer set of rules about known neurons, and brand appropriation should be a factor.
Personally I think the NNS should require known neurons to use the owner’s real name (either their first, last, or full name). This makes it obvious who the neuron represents and that it’s controlled by an individual.
My last name is ‘Lorimer’ and it’s the name of my known neuron. @krzysztofzelazko has also been upfront with the naming of his known neuron. ‘DFINITY Foundation’ is a decentralised neuron that cannot be controlled by any individual, so it makes sense not to use an individual’s name. Same for ‘CO.DELTA’.
Thats the thing, He didnt put name on neuron, He uses alias to hide name.
Right now you approving behaviour where anyone can make lot of projects, lie about what those projects want to do, than rugpull. If you followed Scott The Scammer, he publicly told he scammed Dfinity to get grant from them. He pretended to be His wife and told that Scott died, this was because neuron He has was under threat of losing it.
Yeah I think this is a very important point. Should we consider how many other known neurons are like this though?
I think it would be worth spinning up a new thread to lobby for a rule that all known neurons should use the owner’s name unless the neuron is legitimately decentralised.
This would protect against potential for Sybil attacks, as well as reducing other potential for misleading voters.
I think something like this should be put to a motion, and if adopted there should be a few known neurons that need decentralising or renaming.
So you’re proposing that every neuron should go through the similar kind of verification process as node providers before being registered? That’s an interesting idea. I’d be open to supporting something like that.
On one hand, a known neuron should definitely be well-recognized by the community. But… what about case where a large group is widely known and active, yet chooses to remain anonymous in terms of identity? If they officially expressed their intent to register - how should that be handled?
Curious to hear your thoughts on this!
I think if the neuron is decentralised and cannot be controlled unilaterally by any individual of the group, then that’s fine.
As soon as there’s an individual that can exert unilateral control over the neuron (including via hotkey or singular Neuron Management followee), for all intents and purposes it’s their neuron.
I don’t think this should need to go as far as fully fledged and expensive audits - just simple community due diligence.
You can verify all the details about a neuron that’s set to public, or a known neuron (which are non-optionally public) using the NNS Governance canister via the dashboard.
The above shows an example of verifying the controller for the ‘D-QUORUM’ known neuron (in this case an open source canister that is known to be highly decentralised). This approach also allows you to check if there are any hotkeys and/or a singular Neuron Management followee (NNS topic 1). It’s not possible to do this for private neurons, such as the one in this Motoko News proposal.
@MotokoNews could you set the neuron to public please?
Ok but heres what happens in reality
That neuron appears in a list on the nns dashboard, and in a drop down that all new stakers see.
They then read through a description written by the known neuron owner to decide who they want to follow.
There is no community review available to see in any of that process.
So yes by registering no neurons we are elevating their status, increasing their governance power etc…
Which is why we have the option to reject proposals. If it was intended to be a process by which anyone could be added to the list there would be no need to vote.
Not everyone knows this user. And they keep making new accounts trying to deceive the community. Thats the point.
But you keep doubling down on your position. Why not just admit you made a mistake?
To be 100% clear…
This is an experienced icp user that does not need any assistance from you to make proposals.
They are using your credibility to bolster their own defamed reputation (under a new alias).
Dont get played.
I believe others have already responded to you.
It would be a different story if he registered a known neuron under his real name — but instead, he’s using Motoko News, which is practically a DFINITY brand, to disguise his own identity.
As I said in one group:
We have a lot of problems in the ICP ecosystem… and one of the biggest is how we keep making excuses for bad actors.
We know exactly who they are and what they’re doing — but no one seems to care, because they’re entertaining, popular, or occasionally say something useful.
That has to stop.
