Rethink Tokenomics Changes

General
1

The Reduce Minimum Voting Delay proposal was passed in 2024, and the proposal to actually make the change has been recently submitted.

Although it seemed a good idea in practice, a lot of new information has come to light recently.

Leo and Enzo, the WaterNeuron founders were the ones to initially propose this change, and did all the work required in the code to push it through. We’ve uncovered that they have unilateral control over the WTN Neuron, with 50.0% and 67.0% votes both going though without opposition.

David Fisher of 9 Yards Capital sent 175,000 ICP to the second WaterNeuron sale at the last minute, and then we uncovered a hidden business transaction where David would fund 84 nodes for Leo and Enzo, in addition to his own 42 nodes under Rivonia Holding. Although they were part of Sisyphe Stiftung (a foundation), they set up Sisyphus AG with David, making sure David had under 25% control.

Enzo and Leo have also been part of the Alice SNS scam, where the BoB miners were taken advantage of, and given 1 day Neurons, once again guaranteeing that Wenzel, Enzo and Leo would retain 51% under any circumstances (as is the way with CodeGov and Synapse). It was only when Enzo and Leo worked on changing the rules of the Boom DAO SNS during the takeover, and then promptly drained the liquidity pool of $100,000 that the loophole that allowed them to do it was closed.

David Fisher is an investor in Coinbase, and they are primed to allow Coinbase liquid staking for ICP. If this happens then they stand to gain an immense amount of voting power, rewards, and control over the network, when they have REPEATEDLY BEEN SHOWN TO ACTING IN BAD FAITH. David also has 6 million ICP locked up in a host of secret accounts that constantly mix and merge funds to hide his tracks.

WaterNeuron could be changed to not steal all the voting power from liquid stakers, but they have refused to even consider making those changes - deflecting onto some theoretical rewrite of the ICP.

These people have no skin in the game, they’re seeking to take over the network and extract as much value as possible.

Let’s have a discussion about NNS voting rewards that takes a more holistic approach, not one that’s been pushed through as quickly as possible to benefit a small group of saboteurs

13 Likes
4

If the foundation decides to push through this change that will basically allow Coinbase mafia to drain all the NNS rewards, I’m fucking done here.

6 Likes
5

:megaphone: Motion Proposal: Hold Off on Tokenomics Changes Until We Discuss NNS Rewards Holistically

View Proposal on Dashboard
Related Forum Thread: Reducing the Minimum Dissolve Delay to 3 Months

Why This Motion Matters

The NNS recently passed a proposal in 2024 to reduce the minimum dissolve delay, with significant support. However, new and highly concerning information has surfaced that calls into question the integrity of both the process and the key actors involved.

A small group of actors—most notably Leo and Enzo, the WaterNeuron founders—have executed a series of tightly coordinated and opaque maneuvers that suggest systemic manipulation of NNS mechanisms for private gain.

Here’s what’s been uncovered:

  • Unilateral Control: Leo and Enzo appear to have unilateral control over the WaterNeuron (WTN) and used it to pass critical proposals with no real opposition (votes at 50.0% and 67.0% respectively).

  • Hidden Node Financing: David Fisher (9 Yards Capital) secretly funded 84 nodes for Leo and Enzo while maintaining 42 nodes of his own—disguising his total influence by spreading ownership across multiple entities and keeping each below the 25% threshold.

  • Foundation Cloaking: These nodes were allegedly funneled through a shell setup involving “Sisyphus Stiftung” and “Sisyphus AG”, a structure designed to obscure real beneficial ownership.

  • Coinbase Staking Control: David Fisher, with significant ICP exposure and ties to Coinbase, is now positioned to dominate liquid staking if the current structure holds—despite repeated patterns of acting in bad faith.

Our Current Proposal:

“Hold off on any tokenomics changes till we can have a new discussion about the NNS rewards.”

This is not a rejection of all change—it is a call to pause and reflect before further entrenching the influence of actors who have demonstrated coordinated extraction of value from the system while refusing to engage in good-faith discussion with the community.

The Stakes

  • Reward Extraction Without Risk: These actors have minimal skin in the game. Their setup uses foundation shields, rapid proposal cycling, and liquidity exploits to benefit a few at the expense of many.

  • Bad-Faith Deflection: When asked to consider changes that would prevent this behavior (e.g. adjusting WTN to stop draining rewards from liquid stakers), they pivot to irrelevant technical debates while ignoring the community’s core concerns.

https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/136702

This tokenomics proposal has been pushed covertly without any annoucements or discussions.

  • Opacity Over Decentralization: Their playbook mimics legacy finance—concealed ownership, pooled influence, and no accountability. This is not the Internet Computer we are building.

We ask the community to vote YES on this motion to pause all tokenomics-related changes until a transparent and community-led discussion on NNS rewards can take place.

We are not here to enable the quiet concentration of power behind legal facades. We are here to build a decentralized, fair, and trust-minimized ecosystem.

The future of NNS integrity demands nothing less.

—
Discussion encouraged below. Zero tolerance for whitewashing, maximal respect for transparency.

4 Likes
6

:pushpin: Observed Tactic : “Selective Execution & Misdirectional Packaging”

This is how it works:

  1. Multi-Part Proposals with One Beneficial Lever
    A proposal is written to include several “technical improvements” or “optimizations” (as seen in @ysyms’s post). Most are reasonable or even helpful on paper —like better age mechanics or fair reward rebasing.
  2. Cherry-Pick the Most Exploitable Clause
    Only the clause that lowers the barrier (e.g., Step 3: reducing minimum dissolve delay to 3 months) is executed , while the counterbalancing reforms (Steps 1, 4) are ignored or postponed indefinitely.
  3. Decentralization Narrative Used as Cover
    These changes are framed as pro-community or “flexibility increasing” to appear progressive. But the real effect is to empower large, liquid actors (like WaterNeuron or backdoor-coordinated wallets).
  4. Cross-Topic Misdirection in Forum Threads
    Discussion is scattered across multiple forum threads and Telegram/Discord groups, ensuring that no single place holds the full timeline or logic path. This disperses accountability and obscures causal links.
  5. Short Neuron Abuse & High-Turnover Staking
    With only Step 3 activated, short-term dissolve neurons (e.g., 3 months) can now earn maturity—enabling quick in/out voting rotations by actors with large ICP bags, without aligning long-term incentives.
  6. Governance Capture via Sharded Influence
    Node ownership and SNS control is fragmented into legal shells (like “Sisyphus Stiftung”) and "independent” foundations—while ultimately traceable to the same financier (David Fisher, et al). This simulates decentralization while consolidating actual control.
1 Like
7

image
image623×102 5.54 KB

1 Like
8

Without it, there is no way to pump price up. Staking rewards should be going to people who pump price up, hold it high.
ICP is a mess and has been from start.

9

What if we roll BACK to direct proportional voting power and reward ?

Making 8 year neuron GREAT AGAIN ?

Honestly, why not doing this ?

This would incentive people to NOT join some waterneuron’s pool and solve basically all the issues. Here the change from 6 to 3 month is even minimal compared to this !

they’re treating us like a naive frog in a pot, slowly turning up the heat until we’re cooked! Lets fight back !

12

You need to provide proof.

The only real evidence of someone changing sns parameters that wasn’t the boom dev team is when you attempted to mint yourself boom sns tokens and when you sent yourself 11,900 icp from the boom treasury.

“ Enzo and Leo have also been part of the Alice SNS scam, where the BoB miners were taken advantage of, and given 1 day Neurons, once again guaranteeing that Wenzel, Enzo and Leo would retain 51% under any circumstances (as is the way with CodeGov and Synapse). It was only when Enzo and Leo worked on changing the rules of the Boom DAO SNS during the takeover, and then promptly drained the liquidity pool of $100,000 that the loophole that allowed them to do it was closed.

^from your proposal :joy:

1 Like
13

What’s at Stake

  • Extraction Without Exposure
    These actors are draining the system through temporary neurons and rapid proposals, while bearing none of the long-term risk carried by committed participants.
  • Strategic Deflection
    Community questions have been routinely redirected to irrelevant technical arguments while refusing to fix known issues —such as WTN draining maturity rewards from stakers who never voted for them.
  • Simulated Decentralization
    The tactics employed mimic legacy centralized finance: foundations as shields , fragmented shell ownership , and insider-first access to protocol-level rewards.
14

While correct or not, to much information has come to the surface to be pushing proposals made in 2024. Let’s hold off on anything concerning neurons rewards/age…

16

Waterneuron Team and DFINITY has failed to address multiple valid and legitmate arguments put forward by ICP NNS DAO participants

Here is another topic

https://forum.dfinity.org/t/governance-centralization-risk-from-liquid-staking-design/44858/331

18

I’m definitely NOT a swamp creature however I believe we need to be a bit more objective about all of this and give some people the benefit of the doubt prior to becoming paranoid conspiracy theorists. Have you ever heard of “innocent until proven guilty”? Circumstantial evidence is just that and can be quite dangerous. A mob mentality of rushing to judgement and taking people straight to the gallows is not only uncivilized but dangerous. Sowing distrust and division across the IC is not necessarily making the IC better esp. at this critical juncture. That is my only point.

What if we are falsely accusing even a single person here? Is that okay? How would you feel if people did this to you?

1 Like
19

@jokerswild You are the one who has been spreading false news on the forum for so many days now. Who are you? What have you contributed to the IC so, far as against just jumping into discussions in between other people talking? Don’t put out your thoughts until they are adding value to the discussions. It’s nice that you lost all your TRAX tokens. Best of luck for not adding any value to this community at all.

20

Despite my previous commentary, Let the record show that I do wholeheartedly agree with Adam & Donna on this extremely important rewards issue and have voted against the 3 month change and I do agree that 8+ yr gangers and the longest term investors and stakers should 110% be prioritized at all costs vs. short term investors/stakers and liquid staking in general period.