Launching an SNS DAO should be completely open, no different than creating a new token, and let the market decide. To prevent spam, a cost should be associated with failed DAOs.
With the NNS vote requirement, it gives successfully launched DAOs a false sense of legitimacy due to the perception that the community would not vote for it if it were not legitimate. We all know that’s not the case because it would require complex auditing for each project.
Most likely, some modifications will need to be made for neuron fund functionality. Personally, I would reward only those projects that are 100% built on ICP and audited, so there is an incentive to do it. This approach would actually give a project more legitimacy.
In the coming years, there will be alternative DAO launchpads, which is great.
However, the motivation to create them should stem from different design choices compared to SNS, not merely because SNS is gated by NNS voting.
I might have overlooked some important aspects, so please feel free to elaborate on why it’s not a good idea.
My view is that launching an SNS DAO on ICP should not be gated by NNS votes.
Stakers should have governance over protocol changes, not over who can launch a SNS DAO.
There should be no difference between using the protocol to launch a DAO or a DEX service.
It should be open to all, and the market should decide. Currently, most of the known neurons do not perform any due diligence, so their ‘yes’ votes are meaningless but give a false signal that this SNS is legitimate.
The ideal i have been looking for is having the backing and security of an SNS, but skipping the NNS decentralization sale.
I think it might make sense for the sale to have an NNS vote, due to these sales being on the NNS and an average i think sees these as ‘approved’ sales vs random scams (even though the NNS vote isn’t great at filtering out bad projects IMO).
Is it possible to have the SNS experience without the sale right now?
The market will determine what’s a scam, and some existing SNS’s might be considered scams. Let’s make SNS an open part of the IC protocol unless someone can point out any drawbacks.
I think the major drawback here is that you could possibly just spam the NNS with NSFW content?
If there is no mechanism to gate what is allowed onto the NNS to raise ICP via an SNS - what’s stopping nefarious actors just pushing anything they want?
I think the proposal method right now actually acts as moderation feature too.
I would also remove the requirement to make a post in this (web2) forum. The sooner this forum becomes less important, the better. We have Taggr, Mora, etc., and a minimal on-chain forum black-holed could be developed in a couple of weeks. Any project can link to an article in the dapp of their preference. The only reason we have these requirements is centralized control, and that is cultural.
That’s why there should be a cost associated with it, similar to how it was implemented with NNS proposals, where there was not only NSFW spam but also antisemitic one.
What’s stopping nefarious actors from pushing anything now? Does it matter if the NNS proposal for a DAO fails or if the DAO itself fails due to being unable to raise the necessary funds?
There is no added value for DAOs to go through an NNS vote. What are the benefits?
What we could do as an added benefit for stakers is when SNS DAO launches only stakers can rate (with NNS voting power) the DAO during fundraising, so that the governing community can voice their vote, which would be directly represented.
I believe most ICP participants have high hopes for SNS DAOs, expecting them to bring prosperity to the ICP ecosystem.
But honestly, how many people think the approved SNS DAO projects have met their expectations? So far, I feel there is more disappointment and dissatisfaction. Where is the problem?
Will opening SNS DAOs and letting the market decide solve this issue? If not, there’s no need to proceed; we should first address the current problems.