Thank you @bjoern. I’m really glad to see that people who understand this background and work process are making sensible decisions on these proposal. This is clearly not a “Drain the Swamp” moment. It’s just a cleanup that has been needed for a month or two now, which will make our jobs easier as community members who are interested in providing credible and reliable reviews of these proposal topics. I hope everyone can rest assured that proper reviews of proposals like this are taking place. This is another big win for those of us who care about protecting the network.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
We should consider the proper public communication about this change as well. I think it is important that the general crypto and business community easily understand that this does not impact the size or power of the network and is actually a major milestone on our decentralization path.
Hey @borovan. I noticed over the last week that about 1-5 whales in the ICP ecosystem with a combined voting power of up to 15%, including your 7% alone, have started rejecting technical proposals that have an impact on the network. These rejects have started occurring within minutes of the proposal being submitted by DFINITY. Do you know the basis of these rejects? What you have been able to observe about these proposals within this short time frame that causes you to recommend to your friends to reject them and why do they follow your recommendation? It could be helpful information for other community members who are actively researching these proposals and it could be helpful for DFINITY as well to know your justification. DFINITY typically waits until the last day of the voting period to cast their vote because they want to give the community time to evaluate each proposal and advise if they should be adopted or rejected before they make their final decision. Hence, offering your justification for the reject might be helpful.
The decision that DFINITY ultimately makes tends to be in agreement with the decision that the CodeGov team makes, so I feel confident that our decisions are typically very credible based on the information available to us and our technical evaluation of the proposals. It is a bit surprising that you feel like it is justified to vote to reject all proposals. What do you know that we don’t know? Will you please provide an explanation so we can all learn?
In what way does your decision to arbitrarily Reject all of these proposals help protect the network? Please provide a more informed answer that simply “drain the swamp”. These are some of the proposals that impact the security of the network, so it would be good to establish the credibility of your decisions.
Yeah, 5 whales with private neurons all rejecting proposals in rapid succession and casting 15 % total voting power in the NNS definitely raises suspicion of collusion to overtake over the network. I’d like to see these very important people announce themselves and why whey are making these decisions. If they have valid reasons, then perhaps we should all know.
It’s because we’ve all realised what you’ve been up to since genesis, Wenzel. Making yourself indispensable within the community, but always focused on voting power.
These proposals are being rejected because they are moving significant numbers of Node Machines to a small group of people, namely WaterNeuron, Aviate Labs, Cedric, Artia, 9 Yards Capital and a few completely random people with no connection to technology.
Louise’s motion to cap the number of nodes at 42 was a carefully constructed plan to move Node Machines into a concentrated number of hands.
Oh, I see. Now I’m the conspiracy. I have the audacity to be one of the most active participants in governance in an ecosystem that is fundamentally designed around governance utility in order to achieve decentralization. My bad. Maybe I should just step back and watch the insiders and whales steam roll the community on this one without saying anything.
It’s like you don’t read or understand what you are doing. These proposals are executing on the exact plan that was thoroughly discussed by the community and agreed to by DFINITY and the NNS; a plan that took over a year to scope and finalize. I hate to break it to you, but if you want to ensure the network is safe, you can’t just sit back all fat and happy collecting your massive staking rewards. With great power comes great responsibility. You, and each of the whales who follow your lead, voted for the current node provider decentralization goals. You had your chance to roll up your sleeves and get involved in defining those goals.
Perhaps you should use some of your rewards to engage more actively in these governance processes in a credible way that protects your interests. That’s what the tokenomics is intentionally designed to empower you to do. You can do better than just throwing out conspiracy theories, casting protest votes, and creating drunken nonsense motion proposals. Get involved at a level that makes you more relevant. People listen to you because you are an insider and a whale in this community and you are often funny in how you engage. I would love to see you turn your power and influence into an active contributor on the serious side of ICP governance that would help advance decentralization. If nothing else, you could actually afford to pay a group of developers to actively review proposals and cast informed votes. So far, only DFINITY has been willing to offer grants for this purpose. Why don’t you collaborate with other whales and do the same in order to help protect your interests?
The whole point of the node provider transition that we are going through right now is to improve decentralization of node providers. The plan aims to reduce the max number of Gen1 nodes that any one node provider can own and increase the total number of node providers. That’s exactly what these proposals you are rejecting are doing. In the process it also helps improve the geographic decentralization metrics as well. You can’t get more concentrated than it already was before this 42 node cap was established. Even if every new node provider was colluding with the previous node providers, then we are no different than we were 2 months ago. You still have established no credible evidence that this collusion exists yet though. So until then, the only credible claim that can be made is that we are indeed decentralizing the ownership of node machines.
Even if that were true, then our node providers are no less decentralized than they were 2 months ago when these transitions began.
Show us the evidence that these are the same group of people. So far your evidence has been weak and easily explained with little effort by anyone who knows where to look.
If you don’t like the way these node machines are being handed off, then you should have been involved in defining the process originally and you should get involved in defining the process moving forward. You could even get involved in reviewing these proposals and offering credible and objective opinions on each one. Instead you seem to be consuming all your time creating conspiracy theories.
Asking a whale that owns 7% total voting power in the NNS and influences up to 15% of total voting power in the NNS for credible evidence of foul play to support his conspiracy theories is an attempt to silence him? What planet to you live on @phasma?
No, Wenzel, here you go again with your distraction game! Silencing just means you’re hitting the “mute” button on anything that doesn’t fit your narrative. Nice try!
What “mute” button. Have you not read anything in this thread? It’s very educational and revealing. Give it a try. See if you can wrap your head around the subject. Come back with something meaningful to discuss.
For the record, I’m not the one flagging your distracting nonsense.
Yeah, I flagged that message @Phasma. I’m letting a lot slide around this topic at the moment since I think it’s worth discussing. But since this thread is devolving into namecalling again I’ll try the soft-mute button again
Interesting. @borovan has used his 7% total voting power in the NNS to adopt this proposal 135750, which suggests that the NNS should take control of a neuron from one person and give it to someone else. Should this be considered an abuse of power? Anyway, I wonder how Adam, or the community, would react if someone proposed to divide up his 1.5M ICP neuron that we saw him use recently to submit the 35 proposals that would change the network.
Let’s use this proposal as a learning opportunity for how liquid democracy works. I’ll voluntarily give that neuron, and the internet identity that controls it, to Adam if he is willing the donate his next 25 ICP proposal rejection fee to charity instead of wasting everyone’s time. Then we can get back to legitimate governance like nothing happened.
By the way, the CodeGov known neuron has voted to reject this proposal. You can also see the whopping 2.5% total voting power that we triggered in the voting history.
