@ZackDS @kyliux would you like to bring anything in as I saw you reacted with the laughing emojis on my question to build the SNS with today’s knowledge, which I think is a pretty good brainstorming question to ask
So what do you want to revive ? Anyone can apply for SNS tomorrow, its alive and working perfectly.
Oh perhaps you mean reviving the money grabbing scam called “neurons funds” ?? Dumping ICP for everyone and making our chain look like cheap joke ? That can stay dead forever.
Here is the complete list of project that could deserve to get SNSed :
- Juno
- Mora
- Idgeek suite
Long track record of great builder. Existing product and advantage of decentralisation.
2 Likes
- I would add a basic contract with founders to the DAO and also require that everyone knows who the founders are. This could be done here in the forum pre-SNS.
- For the system itself — I would make it so that a general SNS / NNS community could vote on fund clawback. If a project has no hope left.. the funds should go back into the Neurons’ Fund. The neurons associated with the dev/SNS team should be blocked from voting on this matter. Only people who purchased the native TOKEN in the SNS process or from the market.
- Neurons’ Fund should be used to top-up the projects that are winners. Seed to Series A; some need more funds to accelerate their mission and EAT up all of the comp in the space. KINIC
. Or indirectly be used to purchase project tokens to be held by the Neurons’ Fund.
3 Likes
If you have missed 99% of the conversation, I do not want to revive any SNS rather create a framework that works better
“ts alive and working perfectly.”
Disagree as lined out above
Agree, And want to prevent this as you may or may not be aware I was one of the people that actually got the attention of Lara by providing the data for the cataclyst that lead to the pause of the NF which was the sale of ICPEX token where they took 400K from their “DEX” deleted all traces and full ported them into the SNS sale which got the NF
Agree they do deserve a SNS In the case of IdGeek its already coming, I have no idea why Juno failed the SNS launch
So please do not question my motives when it comes to transparancy and accountability if you will
1 Like
Here you go
“ Reviving the SNS Framework”
“Framework refers to system of mechanisms, not particular projects”
And it’s great that you don’t control the forum as we need different perspectives and opinions to have a diverse discussion, you might think this way, that’s fine and all right, but if you just want to constantly attack me here for posting, then I would ask you to leave the conversation as this doesn’t bring anything constructive or meaningful to the discussion
Thanks in advance
There was a second question on my previous post and it seems you failed to answer. Proving my point 
As I brought it up years ago when it was first released, SNS lacks a core mechanism that has been in the ICO world of Ethereum since the beginning, which is a rating system that can inform crypto investors about the trust the community puts in a project. Such a system would allow every verified community member to rate a project on its trustworthiness before its SNS sale begins, and those whose projection are proven correct could gain rewards either from NNS and/or SNS projects themselves as well as have their voting weight increased for future projects.
That way, investors would have less to complain if/when their investments implode.
3 Likes
How is that proposal relevant?
1 Like
It sets up the framework and the treasury’s to fill up the treasurty’s through the fee collector which can then be implemented with the treasury manager, at least thats what I think, bjoern liked the posts and this is actually his work on the github, not 100% sure if this has to do with this thread but certainly a tool the SNS framework can use to fix the problem of one way cookie jars
There was no such thing for the first 5 years at least.
1 Like
This is correct:
"There was no built-in or core rating system for ICOs in the Ethereum ecosystem from the “beginning” (Ethereum’s own ICO ran from July to August 2014, and the ICO model on Ethereum remained niche until 2016–2017).
Early ICOs (2014–2016 examples: Ethereum itself, Augur, Digix, FirstBlood, Golem, SingularDTV) relied entirely on off-chain community discussions for trust and due diligence — mainly Bitcointalk announcement threads, Reddit, blogs, and later Telegram/Discord. People manually assessed projects via team reputation, whitepaper quality, code audits (when available), and forum feedback. No formal, standardized, or on-chain rating mechanism existed at all.
Dedicated third-party ICO rating platforms only appeared in 2017, during the massive ICO boom when hundreds of projects launched and investors needed tools to filter scams from legitimate ones.
Known Launch Timeline of Major Platforms
Here are the earliest and most prominent examples with approximate/known launch dates:
| Platform | Launch Year | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Smith + Crown | ~2015–2016 | Early research/reports on token sales, but not a public rating/scoring system like later sites. |
| ICObench | Late 2017 (around October–November) | One of the first popular ones with numerical ratings, expert reviews, and community scores. |
| ICO Drops | 2017 | Calendar + basic ratings/analysis. |
| ICOrating | 2017 | Agency-style ratings (later shut down/rebranded). |
| TrackICO | 2017 | Ratings and interviews. |
| ICOHolder, Foundico, etc. | 2017–2018 | Followed the same wave. |
These platforms were never “core” to Ethereum ICOs — they were independent websites that scraped or manually reviewed projects. Many ICOs succeeded or failed without ever being listed or highly rated on them (e.g., Bancor, Status, TenX in 2017 raised huge amounts regardless of ratings).
The quote’s claim that a rating system “has been in the ICO world of Ethereum since the beginning” is factually incorrect. No such mechanism existed in 2014–2016, and even in 2017–2018 the rating sites were optional, third-party tools that appeared ≈3 years after Ethereum’s ICO.
SNS DAOs on ICP also have no built-in rating system (proposals are voted on directly by ICP holders or through decentralization swaps), which is actually consistent with how real Ethereum-era ICOs worked — trust was always built off-chain or through direct community signals, not through any standardized on-protocol rating.
The person who made that statement is simply wrong or misremembering — third-party rating sites were a 2017 phenomenon, not something that existed “since the beginning.”
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_fdfcb4af-771e-41ab-bd17-5d839447e878
-Grok
Nowhere in my posts have I said that Ethereum had a builtin rating system, obviously I was referring to platforms like ICOmarks, ICObench, ICOdrops, etc. which have been in the “ICO world of Ethereum” since 2017 if not earlier. My point was simply that Ethereum always had tools to help people be more selective with their investments which SNS on ICP could’ve provided as builtin since inception if people on these forums listened to me when I brought it up years ago.
Next time try to use your brain instead of AI slop, @bitel911
I use the tools to my advantage, I agree there should be something like a rating system for projects / teams on ic, please retain from insulting me because I used a tool that will search all information for me in 2 min that would take me 20 min to find out
Then maybe you should try sticking to facts that I actually stated in my posts instead of creating false narratives for whatever purposes you had in mind.
I was one of the biggest supporters of Ethereum from 2014 to 2019. I was there in every ICO and funded and helped many projects. What you’re saying is complete nonsense.
Ethereum didn’t even exist in 2014, it was launched sometime in 2015.
Jan 1st 2014 I was on reddit posting replies to Vitalik, coming up with ideas for multi-generational wealth, charity systems etc.
Right, and I was helping Satoshi Nakamoto write the Bitcoin paper back in 2008. Anyone can claim anything on the interwebz, doesn’t mean it’s true.
No but I can sign the keys for my genesis accounts which provably had millions of ETH and helped every project under the sun.