I would like to reiterate my concerns with the current design, it seems too rigid and will force all dapps into a needlessly specific form of initial distribution and governance.
The service nervous systems (SNSs) are an extension of the Network Nervous System (NNS)
Why do the SNSs need to be an extension of the NNS? What benefits does this provide? Why can’t each SNS be stand-alone and deployed by developers without having to go through the NNS and be maintained by the NNS?
Anyone can participate in the SNS governance by purchasing SNS tokens and locking them into SNS neurons.
There is an assumption here that all SNS tokens will be purchased. I don’t think that we should assume this is how all SNS tokens will be distributed.
Also, what if we don’t want the concept of neurons or staking/locking of tokens? What if it’s determined that a dapp can simply be governed by liquid tokens, the voting being just one function of the token? In that case the requirement to lock tokens in neurons would be unnecessary.
The SNS can decide to use tokens to reward early adopters and active users, which will help attract users. Furthermore, those who then possess SNS tokens are motivated to help increase the value of the tokens by attracting even more users, which will have positive network effects that are critical for the success of a dapp.
This focus on one type of funding mechanism, basically the traditional ICO model or liquidity mining model, I don’t think should be emphasized so much. Each dapp should make its own determination. It seems strange for this to be part of the SNS designs. I think this is leading the design in just one direction, and not allowing it to be general enough.
As their tokens are locked in SNS neurons, they will be incentivized to vote taking into consideration the future value of SNS tokens and thus vote in the long-term interest of the dapp.
This assumes the tokens will actual have a monetary value, I think it’s entirely reasonable that some dapps will have tokens that aren’t meant to have monetary value. We shouldn’t use this assumption since it might not apply to all dapps.
Unlike the NNS, an SNS also has an auction canister that will be used to distribute tokens at the initialization (design ongoing).
Not all dapps will want an auction to initialize the supply.
That is, the NNS will control the canisters of all SNSs and each SNS instance will control the canisters of the dapp that it has been assigned to.
Why is the NNS controlling the canisters of all SNSs directly? I mentioned this point above as well, seems better to allow the token holders to directly control the SNS from initial deployment.
Additionally, the NNS governance canister would be extended with new proposal types and the NNS registry canister would have new records to store the SNS configurations
I would hope that we don’t have to ask permission from the NNS to deploy an SNS. Why permission dapps like this?
The design is far too specific, and I think can be greatly simplified and still achieve its purpose.
The NNS is already not the ideal governance mechanism: Tokenomics Proposal [Community Consideration]
Many of us are trying to figure out ways to improve the NNS, and I think generally speaking we simply do not yet know what the ideal governance mechanism for the Internet Computer is. Trying to take the current NNS governance system and just copy it to all dapps I do not think is the ideal choice right now.