SNS Foundation Named Neurons (Call to Action)

[Accumulating.icp]

Objective

The current Named Neuron environment lacks code-based contributors outside of the DFINITY Foundation. This Call to Action aims to enhance the involvement of participating and contributing named neurons, particularly targeting SNS Foundations with ample available resources.

Background

Presently, the DFINITY Foundation wields over 99% of voting power when it comes to code-based topics, except Replicas, where there’s a ~10% reduction compared to other topics.

This dominance traces back to the Genesis of the Internet Computer, during which DFINITY assigned themselves 100% of Voting Power as “followees.” This configuration allowed DFINITY to govern the protocol’s initial stages effectively and execute vital proposals promptly.

However, more than two years after Genesis, this voting power remains firmly in DFINITY’s control, citing a “lack of alternative contributors” as the reason. It’s pertinent to note that the present alternative contributors to the NNS are viewed as unsustainable due to their lack of funding sources.

This circumstance presents a risk, as the Internet Computer strives for decentralization but is currently governed by a singular, self-appointed centralized entity through the NNS.

This leads us into the concept of “SNS Foundation Named Neurons”;

While not universally attainable for every SNS Project due to differing funding levels, this initiative seeks the participation of SNS Foundations in bridging the gap and contributing to the Internet Computer from a code-based perspective as Named Neurons.

This endeavor is both rational and feasible, with a multitude of benefits for SNS Foundations and dApps building on the Internet Computer, as outlined below:

• Sustainability Concerns:

The paramount concern surrounding alternative contributors centers on their sustained financial viability, a critical element in maintaining a vibrant and progressive ecosystem. This is where the significance of SNS Foundations’ involvement cannot be understated. With access to substantial funding derived from SNS DAOs, often earmarked for advancing development, Foundations possess a unique capability to compensate Named Neuron contributions. By actively leveraging their financial resources to support and incentivize these contributors, Foundations can infuse stability into the ecosystem, ensuring that it thrives not merely in the present but well into the future.

• Aligning Self-Interests:

Delving deeper into the question of why SNS DAOs should shoulder the responsibility of Named Neuron contributions unveils a profound connection to the essence of decentralization. SNS DAOs, functioning within the ambit of the formidable NNS, inherently rely on a decentralized governance framework for equitable decision-making. By embracing the role of contributing Named Neurons, Foundations can effectively cement their position as pillars of this decentralized community. This proactive participation serves as a safeguard against the potential upheaval that disagreements can create. Drawing parallels to the historical “Block Wars” between BCH and BTC, it’s evident that decentralized systems thrive when a diverse range of contributors collaboratively shape the ecosystem’s trajectory. Foundations, by embracing this stance, not only protect their own interests but collectively contribute to an environment conducive to progress.

• Development Quality Assurance:

The apprehensions surrounding the quality of contributions from alternative contributors underscore the imperative of maintaining a high standard of development within the ecosystem. Here, the role of SNS Foundations takes on an added significance. As the foundational architects of SNS dApps, these developers have not only undergone rigorous scrutiny of DFINITY and the community but have also earned a distinct “vote of confidence” from the ecosystem. This signifies a level of trust established through proven track records and a commitment to excellence. As contributing Named Neurons, they continue to uphold this standard, reinforcing the ecosystem’s credibility and reinforcing the notion that decentralization thrives when underpinned by individuals and entities with a demonstrated dedication to quality and innovation.

Conclusion

In sum, the integration of SNS Foundations as Named Neurons transcends mere participation; it embodies an unwavering dedication to the fundamental principles of decentralization. By addressing sustainability concerns, safeguarding self-interests through proactive participation, and upholding development quality, Foundations play an instrumental role in shaping a robust, decentralized ecosystem primed for sustained advancement. In doing so, they epitomize the collaborative ethos inherent in genuine decentralization, ensuring that the Internet Computer stands as a paragon of collective progress and innovation.

written by accumulating.icp

[firerisk]

I choose to follow DFINITY, because I trust them on code based decisions for ICP. I think following other neurons would be a mistake. You’re definition of ‘decentralization’ could cause damage to ICP. Frankly, I don’t trust other neurons enough to follow them for voting on code based proposals.

[borovan]

Correct answer +1.

Don’t fall into the undercurrent of undermining the foundation to financially benefit certain ex-employees…

[Accumulating.icp]

@firerisk

I choose to follow DFINITY, because I trust them on code based decisions for ICP. I think following other neurons would be a mistake. You’re definition of ‘decentralization’ could cause damage to ICP. Frankly, I don’t trust other neurons enough to follow them for voting on code based proposals

Aside from Governance / SNS proposals, so do I!

I’m not trying to take anything away from DFINITY - they’ve obviously been the leading/primary contributor to ICP for the last 5 years+.

However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage other contributors to the Internet Computer! It’s an open source decentralized protocol built in Rust, which is an extremely well documented language, that has pre-existed ICP.

This means that over time, we should strive for alternative contributors (to DFINITY), that are capable of making reputable contributions to the Internet Computer!

In my opinion, the best way to start doing this is from within the ecosystem - those who have built with the protocol; know it’s strengths, weaknesses, and the direction they need it to evolve in to maintain a cutting edge developing environment.

I don’t believe it is constructive to say that alternative Named Neurons (to DFINITY) is harmful to the network. The Followee System is a powerful tool, and I believe it is more harmful for the network in the instance people are discouraged to use it, while it’s currently dominated in voting power by a single entity.

The Followee System is a unique construct to ICP, highlighting the power of choice & liquid democracy. While it’s true you, and many others actively, contently choose to follow DFINITY - there is no accurate measure to the quantity that are following due to a pre-assignment at Genesis, or feel as though there are no other options to continue collecting their neurons APY.

Given this unique ability - choice - it’s important to provide the option of adequate, competent choices within each proposal topic.

I’m not recommending people follow these potential named neurons, nor have I phrased this as a proposal (“demanding” action), but rather a Call to Action (“requesting” action) to the Core Foundations of current & future SNS DAOs, who are willing to contribute to the governance & decentralization of ICP.

@borovan

Don’t fall into the undercurrent of undermining the foundation to financially benefit certain ex-employees

I am not an ex-employee of the foundation - nor am I directly financially compensated for any of the governance work I do. The only form of income I personally receive from ICP are the staking rewards from my Neuron. This seems like an attempted sweeping statement to discredit this topic, due to fear of potential decentralization.

[wpb]

Hey @Accumulating.icp at a high level I think this is a good idea worth further discussion among the community. Thanks for starting the conversation. I always appreciate when I see people trying to ideate on ways to advance decentralization of the IC and that seems to be your goal here. Below are a few questions and comments that come to mind initially.

@Accumulating.icp

While not universally attainable for every SNS Project due to differing funding levels, this initiative seeks the participation of SNS Foundations in bridging the gap and contributing to the Internet Computer from a code-based perspective as Named Neurons.

Do you think SNS projects should be more incentivized to make code-based contributions to the IC than projects that have not gone through the SNS yet (or maybe never plan that path)? I used to think all projects should be incentivized to make these kinds of decentralized contributions, but there really are not any larger projects that have contributed to the NNS in this way (at least not publicly to my knowledge). I know SNS projects benefit from substantial funding, but that funding doesn’t come with any strings attached regarding the NNS. Their situation seems similar to any project that achieves success in a VC funding round. They likely want to focus on next steps to achieve their promised goals on their roadmap and don’t feel incentivized to contribute to the NNS in very significant ways. Perhaps I’m missing something about why SNS projects might respond to this call to action in ways that non-SNS projects haven’t so far.

@Accumulating.icp

the concept of “SNS Foundation Named Neurons”

I’m having trouble understanding this concept fully. Are you proposing an SNS Foundation? Or is it a Named Neuron made of leaders of each SNS? The latter is a pretty cool idea in my opinion if there is any interest among the SNS teams. I would recommend making sure control of the neuron is fully decentralized, which can only be achieved today if it is created using command line. I suppose the policy could be that each SNS team gets to nominate one voting member, which means you could have participation from up to 15 SNS teams. Anyway, I’m not sure if this is what you have in mind when you talk about a SNS Foundation Named Neurons. Perhaps you are just advocating for each SNS to also create a named neuron for the NNS, which also seems like a good idea.

When you talk about SNS Foundation and sustainable funding, are you suggesting that each SNS should donate funds to create a foundation? I guess I’m still having trouble understanding why this should be a SNS project responsibility. It seems decentralization should be the goal of all NNS participants and funding to achieve it should be sourced from all NNS participants. I don’t really see how volunteer contributions (time or money) is a sustainable model.

Anyway, I hope this forum topic produces a civilized exchange of ideas. Thanks again for starting the conversation.

[firerisk]

The issue I have is in your language here.

@Accumulating.icp

This dominance traces back to the Genesis of the Internet Computer, during which DFINITY assigned themselves 100% of Voting Power as “followees.” This configuration allowed DFINITY to govern the protocol’s initial stages effectively and execute vital proposals promptly.

However, more than two years after Genesis, this voting power remains firmly in DFINITY’s control, citing a “lack of alternative contributors” as the reason. It’s pertinent to note that the present alternative contributors to the NNS are viewed as unsustainable due to their lack of funding sources.

The voting power remains in DFINITY’'S control, as you put it, because these people haven’t opted for another followee. It’s been over two years, so they must be happy with DFINITY as their followee . There are plenty of choices now and I’m sorry these people are not doing what you want . They can choose who ever they like and this makes me happy .
I like the governance here because of the freedom of each individual’s choice.

[borovan]

He follows the same pattern. Finds something innocuous and makes a big drama out of it to serve some agenda. He’s not the only one either.

Part of the reason I fight back is because I was in a seed investor telegram group for a year or so. Every single person there parrotted the same meme that “Dominic’s tweets are destroying the ICP price.” Even people I’d known for 5+ years were drinking the Arthur/Artia/Cedric kool-aid.

Go forward a year and we’ve got a “Dominic should stop tweeting” proposal made by Isaac who works for Cedric, then a ridiculous “ethos” proposal.

These guys are constantly looking for a way to undermine the foundation, it’s stupid and it’s a distraction to the people building the IC.

I am, however, building the biggest game in the world (non profit) and have been doing so for 11 years and anybody who messes with my plan had better lawyer up. Especially those that try and poach my lead developer.

[Phasma]

Some of this appears to resemble a conspiracy theory to me

[borovan]

Time will tell.

In the meantime just keep your eyes open for multiple people all pushing the same narrative. Usually that means there’s somebody manipulating them.

I am totally for other organisations contributing towards the Internet Computer, I just want them to be doing it for the right reasons.

When a group of people have been trying to wrest control of the initial three seed neurons for a year before genesis and are pushing the narrative that Dom is “poisoning” the ecosystem, no… I don’t want them anywhere near the IC REGARDLESS of what they say they’re capable of.

I have 2 years of chat logs that show exactly what’s going on.

EDIT: I mean manipulate all the seed investors into following the initial three seed Neurons and then infiltrate those organisations to gain control.

[Accumulating.icp]

@wpb

Hey @Accumulating.icp at a high level I think this is a good idea worth further discussion among the community. Thanks for starting the conversation. I always appreciate when I see people trying to ideate on ways to advance decentralization of the IC and that seems to be your goal here. Below are a few questions and comments that come to mind initially.

Good morning Wenzel, thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts together & responding. I think there have been quite a few misconceptions in your understandings of my post, so I’m going to try to clarify my opinion a bit;

@wpb

Do you think SNS projects should be more incentivized to make code-based contributions to the IC than projects that have not gone through the SNS yet (or maybe never plan that path)?

@wpb

Their situation seems similar to any project that achieves success in a VC funding round. They likely want to focus on next steps to achieve their promised goals on their roadmap and don’t feel incentivized to contribute to the NNS in very significant ways. Perhaps I’m missing something about why SNS projects might respond to this call to action in ways that non-SNS projects haven’t so far.

It’s not a question about “should” they be or not. I’d agree that everyone “should” be incentivized to make code-based contributions.

This is simply pointing out the fact that they have the pre-existing incentives of hundreds of thousands of ICP in fundraising (in most cases), and a dApp thats existence is ultimately governed by the NNS (given the fact that only the NNS can execute certain changes on SNS Canisters).

When the NNS is centralized, it is a platform risk for anybody developing on it.

If we shouldn’t be looking to those who have built with the IC, been vetted by DFINITY & the Community, and received the blessing of hundreds of thousands of $ICP in funding, to contributing to alleviating these concerns - where should we look?

It seems as though there is a recurring theme that we should remain compliant & reliant upon DFINITY.

@Accumulating.icp

nor have I phrased this as a proposal (“demanding” action), but rather a Call to Action (“requesting” action) to the Core Foundations of current & future SNS DAOs, who are willing to contribute to the governance & decentralization of ICP.

Meaning, if any SNS Foundations were to resonate with this call to action - the scope of their contribution is up to them entirely. Whether that be simply voting on Governance & SNS Proposals, verifying Replicas, or contributing to building & maintaining cutting edge features of the IC - it’s entirely their choice.

The goal is simply to spark interest in contribution.

@wpb

I’m having trouble understanding this concept fully. Are you proposing an SNS Foundation? Or is it a Named Neuron made of leaders of each SNS? The latter is a pretty cool idea in my opinion if there is any interest among the SNS teams. I would recommend making sure control of the neuron is fully decentralized, which can only be achieved today if it is created using command line. I suppose the policy could be that each SNS team gets to nominate one voting member, which means you could have participation from up to 15 SNS teams. Anyway, I’m not sure if this is what you have in mind when you talk about a SNS Foundation Named Neurons. Perhaps you are just advocating for each SNS to also create a named neuron for the NNS, which also seems like a good idea.

While a “committee” of SNS Foundation Leaders does sound like an interesting idea, this is not what I had originally considered an “SNS Foundation Named Neuron”.

I am putting out the concept of each individual SNS Foundation creating their own Named Neuron, to represent their own individual interests as a Foundation developing a dApp on the Internet Computer.

Meaning, in an optimal world, each SNS Foundation would have their own Named Neuron, contributing to the governance of the Internet Computer in a form that they deem appropriate & feasible.

@wpb

When you talk about SNS Foundation and sustainable funding, are you suggesting that each SNS should donate funds to create a foundation?

I’m not sure if you’ve been following SNS launches, but this is already what happens - many SNS Sales have earmarked a portion of the treasury to funding the core teams “Foundation”.

I’m not suggesting that this method is employed - however I am saying given it is, these Foundations have the feasibility to dedicate minimal resources to contributing to the NNS in a manner they deem reasonable.

They’re building a protocol, inherently intertwined with & reliant on not only the Internet Computer, but the NNS itself; therefor the opportunity to minimize platform risk provides great benefit to the longevity of the dApp.

@wpb

It seems decentralization should be the goal of all NNS participants and funding to achieve it should be sourced from all NNS participants. I don’t really see how volunteer contributions (time or money) is a sustainable model.

I’d agree that decentralization should be the goal of all NNS participants - but it quite clearly is not. This is a well documented issue within these forums.

It also seems like this is another subtle attempt to push the narrative of the necessity of an NNS Treasury.

As such, you should note that this is not a volunteer contribution - SNS Foundations are directly rewarded for any contribution through the mitigation of platform risk & potentially via the SNS Treasury itself for their work - as it directly pertains to the longevity & development of the dApp itself.

@wpb

Anyway, I hope this forum topic produces a civilized exchange of ideas. Thanks again for starting the conversation.

As do I, thanks for taking the time to respond & share your thoughts !

[Accumulating.icp]

@firerisk

The issue I have is in your language here.

While you don’t like what I’ve said, that doesn’t change the accuracy of my statement.

“Facts don’t care about feelings”

@firerisk

The voting power remains in DFINITY’'S control, as you put it, because these people haven’t opted for another followee. It’s been over two years, so they must be happy with DFINITY as their followee

As we discussed on twitter, there’s a few reasons for this;

1. People are truly content with DFINITY utilizing their voting power (I’m not saying this is unlikely, however I am saying we need to provide a choice).

2. There are no other code based contributors (aside from the rare exception of the Replica topic) . No matter where anybody assigns their neuron as a followee, it gets reassigned to DFINITY in the end. This is due to the fact that we’ve switched to a Voting Based Reward system, and now force participation or penalize APY.

3. People simply haven’t checked their NNS since Genesis. We are in the middle of a bear market.

There’s simply no accurate way to gauge which.

However, you can accurately measure the quantity of options; 1.

There needs to be more options available in an environment that forces participation.

@firerisk

I like the governance here because of the freedom of each individual’s choice.

If we are Pro Freedom of Choice, why is it such an issue that I am requesting that more people make Named Neurons, more people participate in Governance, more people contribute to the IC, etc…?

[Accumulating.icp]

@borovan

He follows the same pattern. Finds something innocuous and makes a big drama out of it to serve some agenda. He’s not the only one either.

I find extreme irony in this statement. Isn’t this that “narcissistic projecting” stuff you were talking about…?

@borovan

Part of the reason I fight back is because I was in a seed investor telegram group for a year or so. Every single person there parrotted the same meme that “Dominic’s tweets are destroying the ICP price.” Even people I’d known for 5+ years were drinking the Arthur/Artia/Cedric kool-aid.

Go forward a year and we’ve got a “Dominic should stop tweeting” proposal made by Isaac who works for Cedric, then a ridiculous “ethos” proposal.

These guys are constantly looking for a way to undermine the foundation, it’s stupid and it’s a distraction to the people building the IC.

I am, however, building the biggest game in the world (non profit) and have been doing so for 11 years and anybody who messes with my plan had better lawyer up. Especially those that try and poach my lead developer

This is the definition of schizo posting.

I don’t even have a telegram - I had to make an account to contact the EMC Protocol for DD & deleted it shortly after.

And again, I’ve never spoken to or interacted with any of the people you’ve named.

I’m pretty sure you’re also referring to a proposal that was made with https://nnsproposal.icp.xyz/ - I don’t believe @aiv was the author of it, just the creator of the dApp.

You’re acting like this is some type of “coordinated assault” - but again, I have no interaction with any of these people in any form outside of public forum discussions. I simply speak on issues that I find to be detrimental to the core values of the Internet Computer.

I find it hilarious that you’ve resulted to legal threat over people pursuing the decentralization of a network (where did I see this before🤔). I’m not building a game, nor trying to poach your developer either. You sound quite literally insane.

@borovan

In the meantime just keep your eyes open for multiple people all pushing the same narrative. Usually that means there’s somebody manipulating them.

I am totally for other organisations contributing towards the Internet Computer, I just want them to be doing it for the right reasons.

You’re quite clearly against alternative contributors to the Internet Computer; as shown in any of the proposals I have made pursuing the topic.

You’re trying to make a blanket statement implying that SNS Foundation Named Neurons don’t contribute to the IC “for the right reason” - without even having a grasp on who this might entail.

I’m not going to entertain these crazy ramblings anymore.

[borovan]

Pop quiz. What do these four projects have in common?

[Accumulating.icp]

@borovan

What do these four projects have in common

“Built on ICP” & Zack likes them.

But please enlighten me on yet another of your unfounded & baseless conspiracies.

I find it amusing that you so consistently capitulate to the point of avoiding direct dialogue & resort to trying to take the conversation off-topic by any means necessary. Please let me know when you’re ready to have a real conversation.

[ZackDS]

This should be interesting. Tried my best to stay out, thank you for including me. Will address this after I hear what are you accusing me of.

[borovan]

Not accusing you of anything other than not including Dragginz (the best thing on the IC) in your list!

[borovan]

Not sure if you know, but do you know what the default follow Neuron for Rakeoff is?

[firerisk]

I agree, I’ve noticed it to. They just keep trying to twist things and create drama. Same pattern over and over again. Then they will run you in circles with replies. I don’t even like replying on forum posts, but jeez tired of the drama mamas.

[aiv]

@borovan

Every single person there parrotted the same meme that “Dominic’s tweets are destroying the ICP price.” Even people I’d known for 5+ years were drinking the Arthur/Artia/Cedric kool-aid.

Go forward a year and we’ve got a “Dominic should stop tweeting” proposal made by Isaac who works for Cedric, then a ridiculous “ethos” proposal.

These guys are constantly looking for a way to undermine the foundation, it’s stupid and it’s a distraction to the people building the IC.

As @Accumulating.icp, that spam proposal about Dom’s tweets was just sent from the dapp I built, I didn’t send it.

I created the NNS Proposal submission dapp as part of a DFINITY bounty, and it was the first dapp that gave anyone the ability to anonymously publish a proposal without coding (CLI) knowledge. There was a wave of spam proposals after it launched as people gave it a try.

At the time I hadn’t even interviewed for my job at Code & State yet, and I was between jobs so I wouldn’t have wasted 10 ICP to troll Dom. More than that, I have complete respect for Dom, ICP wouldn’t even exist without him so I owe him my livelihood!

Also, Arthur is very vocal, but he’s got nothing to do with Cedric, Artia, or Code & State. They all know each other but Arthur also knows a lot of other ex-DFINITY people. He’s also not really active in the ICP ecosystem anymore.

[aiv]

@borovan

When a group of people have been trying to wrest control of the initial three seed neurons for a year before genesis and are pushing the narrative that Dom is “poisoning” the ecosystem, no… I don’t want them anywhere near the IC REGARDLESS of what they say they’re capable of.

I have 2 years of chat logs that show exactly what’s going on.

I’ve never heard of anything like this, what are the “initial three seed neurons”? Are you talking about the DFINITY & ICA neurons?

By all means, if this is going on it’s bad and worth getting to the bottom of. Why don’t we have a Twitter space or something to clear the air and hear out what you have to say?