Reviving the SNS Framework: Addressing Current Challenges and Exploring Solutions

[bitel911]

@kyliux

So what do you want to revive ? Anyone can apply for SNS tomorrow, its alive and working perfectly.

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

@kyliux

the money grabbing scam called “neurons funds” ?? Dumping ICP for everyone and making our chain look like cheap joke ? That can stay dead forever.

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

@kyliux

• Juno
• Mora
• Idgeek suite

Agree they do deserve a SNS In the case of IdGeek its already coming, I have no idea why Juno failed the SNS launch

Dexter ∞ Caff/acc

Dexter ∞ Caff/acc

Dexter ∞ Caff/acc

Dexter ∞ Caff/acc

So please do not question my motives when it comes to transparancy and accountability if you will

[bitel911]

@kyliux

Whats the title of the forum topic ? I cant read from here.

Here you go

“ Reviving the SNS Framework”

“Framework refers to system of mechanisms, not particular projects”

@kyliux

All in all, when I see you write, I just see nonsense of someone that try really hard to be relevant by spamming the forum

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

[kyliux]

There was a second question on my previous post and it seems you failed to answer. Proving my point

[vavram]

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.

[bitel911]

This looks like a very good update, hats off @bjoern

First steps in fixing SNS
Proposal139578

@bitel911

• Regenerative Loops: Automatically route inflows (e.g., LP rewards, neuron maturity, fees) back into the treasury via deposits/withdrawals. For instance, mandate 10-20% of the treasury post-launch to an 8-year neuron stake (similar to DEX liquidity provisioning). This generates yields for ops costs (e.g., cycles) over at least 5 years, with the remainder directed to burns, buybacks, or non-inflationary rewards. Draw inspiration from systems like Sneed’s Recursive Liquidity Loop.

[apotheosis]

How is that proposal relevant?

[bitel911]

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

[resadona88]

@vavram

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.

There was no such thing for the first 5 years at least.

[bitel911]

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

[vavram]

@resadona88

There was no such thing for the first 5 years at least.

@bitel911

The quote’s claim that a rating system “has been in the ICO world of Ethereum since the beginning” is factually incorrect.

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

[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

[vavram]

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.

[resadona88]

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.

[resadona88]

Jan 1st 2014 I was on reddit posting replies to Vitalik, coming up with ideas for multi-generational wealth, charity systems etc.

[vavram]

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.

[resadona88]

No but I can sign the keys for my genesis accounts which provably had millions of ETH and helped every project under the sun.

[resadona88]

Reddit - The heart of the internet

Ask the white hat group who funded them to the tune of > $1 million to assist in the recovery.

Anyway my point is that I thought the IC would be different. Nope, same old sharks, hackers and scammers.

[bitel911]

@vavram

SNS lacks a core mechanism that has been in the ICO world of Ethereum since the beginning, which is a rating system

I literally put this into grok, you said it has a core mechanism that has been in the ICO
World of ETH since the beginning, please let’s not argue about little things like this since it doesn’t actually help us solve the problem

[vavram]

Yes I said “ICO world of Ethereum” which includes 3rd party tools in the ecosystem, genius. You attack me with AI slop creating false narratives about what I said and then you try to paint yourself as a victim in our exchange. Pathetic.