This is awesome work @Alixthe, love that table.
Hello everyone. We want to express the hope that for-profit and non-profit will work with different specifications and that both will work.
- Public dapps will be run by token governance.
- Corporate or individual dapps can be run centrally. Or only limited number of people can purchase governance tokens. We want to be flexible.
- AI censors the data. Operated by a foundation or a community.
The Twitter thread is below. It is in Japanese.
So I’ve been building a simple SNS that doesn’t require changes to the IC protocols, just as an experiment and hopefully it will be useful to projects wanting something like the SNS before it comes out. Nothing crazy, WIP, but here’s the code: GitHub - lastmjs/simple-sns
As I’ve been building this, an interesting nuance has surfaced. It would be nice for the SNS to allow any token (including NFTs) to be specified as the governance token. Why should every dapp have to issue a new token entirely?
What if I want ICP holders to be able to govern my dapp? Or HZLD holders? Or Cronics hodlers? What If I want to start out with Cronics holders, and then allow the community to vote and switch to another NFT to govern from there on?
It would be nice to allow the SNS to choose an already-existing token as the governance token, in addition to minting a new token (as an option).
Hey thanks @dralves appreciate the feedback
Reading through the design proposals I’m glad that @lastmjs addresses the elephant in the room. A complicated and opinionated feature is implemented what instead should be something allowed for the free market of dapp developers to figure out. Imagine such a proposal as an Ethereum EIP. Unthinkable! In fact it is somewhat alarming that permissionless innovation seems not a core value of the dfinity team.
Make it a library not a core feature at least.
- I believe the supply will be inflationary because of the staking of such token. However, change is possible but don’t know the pros and cons of extending that from the original design of the NNS.
Should the NNS have complete power over every SNS?
I think the NNS should have more power over time. I don’t think the distribution of power is where it needs to be right now.
It assumes the community of the SNS is a small percentage of the NNS. The NNS will have verified neurons so it will be more distributed and tied to real people. Whereby, the SNS might be a restricted community for example alt right Trump supporters. Should the NNS have power to take them down. What if the SNS votes to keep the content. Should the global community of NNS take them down?
Going rogue. Depends on how the minting of tokens is done. But I am guessing it is possible. The NNS might keep track of the tokens though to stop clone tokens.
Going with the standard template for token distribution presented in the video, can we have a set amount of tokens from action reserved for verified neurons. Also setting a max amount limit for purchase, during each phase. There can be many different types of phases that can be chosen.
The other question people have mentioned is if the initial projects owners can choose to do it their own way? And if so, that project would be open to more scrutiny. However, should that be a right?